DOJ-OGR-00021701.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page54 of 93 41 remained subject to indictment in 2007, once the changes were made. A dead charge was not resurrected, and the un- derlying nature of [defendant’s] potential criminal liability remained the same. United States v. Piette, 45 F.4th 1142, 1161-62 (10th Cir. 2022). The decisions of other Courts of Appeals are in accord. Sure Chief, 438 F.3d at 922-25; Jeffries, 405 F.3d at 685. Maxwell cites United States v. Richardson, 512 F.2d 105 (8d Cir. 1975), and two district court deci- sions that are bound to follow it. (Br.58-59). But Rich- ardson, which was decided before Landgraf, is “incon- sistent with Landgraf.” United States v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619, 630 (E.D. Va. 2019). Specifically, Rich- ardson focused on whether Congress expressed a “clear intention” to overcome the presumption against retroactivity, 512 F.2d at 106, without engaging in Landgraf ’s second step, i.e., considering whether the statute “would have retroactive effect,” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280. Moreover, unlike the 2003 amendment, the statute at issue in Richardson did not expressly provide that “[n]o statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution” of the relevant offense “shall preclude” prosecution under the terms of the amended statute. In sum, the statute of limitations for the charges in the Indictment had not yet expired when the 20038 amendment to Section 3283 extended the limitations period, and Judge Nathan correctly determined that applying the 2003 amendment in this case does not create impermissible retroactive effects. Therefore, DOJ-OGR-00021701