DOJ-OGR-00004723.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 295 Filed 05/25/21 Page 16 of 26

question is simply “whether the charged offenses involved the sexual abuse of a minor on the facts alleged in this case.” (Apr. Op. at 13). As was the case for Counts One through Four, there is no question that Counts Five and Six involved the sexual abuse of a minor on the facts alleged in this case. Accordingly, the motion should be denied.

Counts Five and Six are also timely under 18 U.S.C. § 3299, which eliminated the statute of limitation for certain sex crimes, including violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591. Enacted in July 2006, § 3299 provides that:

Notwithstanding any other law, an indictment may be found or an information instituted at any time without limitation for any offense under section 1201 involving a minor victim, and for any felony under chapter 109A, 110 (except for section 2257 and 2257A), or 117, or section 1591.

Because Count Five alleges a conspiracy to violate § 1591 and Count Six alleges a substantive violation of § 1591, there is no statute of limitation for these counts, pursuant to § 3299.

Applying § 3299, which was passed in 2006, to charges arising from conduct between 2001 and 2004 is appropriate under Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994). At step one of the Landgraf analysis, the statute unambiguously applies to offenses notwithstanding any other statute of limitations, as the plain text of § 3299 applies “[n]otwithstanding any other law.” And at step two, because the statute of limitations for Counts Five and Six had not run in 2006 when § 3299 was passed, its application here has no impermissible retroactive effect. Indeed, in many respects the analysis of § 3299 under Landgraf mirrors the analysis of § 3283, which the Court has held applies to pre-enactment conduct. (See Apr. Op. at 16 (analyzing the retroactive application of § 3283 and concluding that the statute applies to pre-enactment conduct)).

12

DOJ-OGR-00004723