DOJ-OGR-00003665.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 206 Filed 04/16/21 Page 13 of 22 the expanded statute of limitations for child sex abuse crimes. See Opp. Mem. 24 (quoting Crime Control Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, tit. II, § 225(a), 104 Stat. 4789, 4798 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (1990)). In 1990, “the only existing limitations period to which the language could have referred was the [five-year] default limit set forth in [18 U.S.C. § 3282].” Miller, 911 F.3d at 644. That is the logical reading of the same provision here. The government cannot prevail on step one. If step one is not resolved in Ms. Maxwell’s favor, the inquiry must proceed to step two. B. Step Two: Application of the 2003 Amendment to Ms. Maxwell’s Alleged Offenses Would Have Impermissible Effects. Even if the Landgraf inquiry were to proceed to the second step—whether retroactive application would have impermissible effects—Ms. Maxwell should prevail. In arguing otherwise, the government effectively claims that in the retroactivity context, Landgraf permits the Court to ignore the bedrock principle that “criminal limitations statutes are ‘to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose.’” Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 115 (1970) (quoting United States v. Scharton, 285 U.S. 518, 522 (1932)). But nothing in Landgraf, a civil case, purports to limit that principle, let alone abrogate it. The government asserts that no court has held that retroactively extending a filing period for live charges is a presumptively impermissible retroactive effect under Landgraf (Opp. 35), but that is not so. In United States v. Gentile, 235 F. Supp. 3d 649 (D.N.J. 2017), the court held that it would be impermissible to retroactively extend a statute of limitations for live charges “absent clear legislative intent” to apply the expanded limitations retroactively. Jd. at 655. In doing so, the court read Landgraf in conjunction not only with Toussie but also with Hughes Aircraft Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939 (1997), a post-Landgraf opinion in which the Supreme Court reiterated the law’s presumption against retroactivity and reiterated that “we DOJ-OGR-00003665