Mega Edition: The DOJ Lights Ghislaine Maxwell Up In Their Response To Her Appeal Request (Part 4-6) (9/6/26)

0:00Dave Roberts here. There you are surrounded by fans, sharing wings, sharing drinks, high-fiving random strangers. Everybody remembers the game. Nobody remembers the guy coughing behind you until a few days later. At 2am, you wake up with the fever and your throats on fire. Now what? Urgent care, clothes, ER, slam, telehealth, maybe, but the pharmacy's clothes. You needed a medical emergency kit. These aren't first aid kits. They contain essential prescriptions, use for over 30 common conditions, sinus and ear infection, UTIs, stomach bug, travelers diarrhea and more. On hand before you need them. Use your doctor-developed guidebook to select the right prescription or call their telemedicine doctor standing by. It's like an urgent care and drugstore at home. When you're sick, traveling or stranded, you'll wish you ordered a medical emergency kit. Order online in minutes and it's shipped to your door and say $45 with my promo code blue at urgentcarekit.com slash blue. That's promo code blue at urgentcarekit.com slash blue.

1:01What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up where we left off with the United States brief in response to Galein Maxwell in her attempt at an appeal. Number three, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to conduct a hearing. Finally, Maxwell argues that the district court, erred by denying her emotions to dismiss without an evidentiary hearing. But as Judge Nathan explained the cases cited by Maxwell in support of a request for a hearing, mostly involved oral arguments where there was no written record of the full set of terms reached by the parties and all of which involved defendants with firsthand knowledge of the negotiations. This is no such case. The NPA's terms are clear. Furthermore, Maxwell had an unusually large amount of information about the NPA's negotiation history in the form of the OPR report yet identifies no evidence that the Department of Justice made any promises not contained in the NPA. Here as below, Maxwell's further request for a

2:07hearing rests on mere conjecture. Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion. Point number two, the district court correctly concluded that the charges were timely. In 2003, Congress extended the Statue of Limitations for Offences involving the sexual or physical abuse of a minor to allow prosecution so long as the victim remains alive. US code 18, section 3283, attempting to undermine the clear legislative intent, Maxwell argues that the amendment did not apply to her case because her crimes both predated the amendment and did not involve sexual abuse. These arguments fly in the face of the statutory text, legislative history, this court's own decisions, and the persuasive authority of other circuits. The charges fell squarely within the amended Statue of Limitations, and this court should affirm Judge Nathan's well-reason decisions, denying Maxwell's motions to dismiss the charges as untimely. A applicable law, one standard of review. This court reviews

3:12DeNovo, both the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment and the application of a Statute of Limitations. United States, verse Samson, 898 F.3D-270-276-278 Second Circuit 2018. 2. Statutes of Limitations for Offences against Children US code 18, section 3283, and Child Abduction and Sex Offences US code 18, section 3299. Most federal non-capital offenses carry a five-year statute of limitations, see US code 18, section 3282A. In 1990, Congress enacted a provision titled extension of child statute of limitations, which provided that no statute of limitation, that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse of a child under the age of 18 shall preclude such a prosecution before the child reaches the age of 25. The Crime Control Act of 1990 pub.l

4:16Number 101-647, Title II, section 225A 104, STAT 4789 4798, codified at US code 18, section 30509K 1990. This provision extended the federal criminal limitation period for child sex abuse offenses, making it easier to prosecute offenders who commit sex crimes that may be difficult to detect quickly. Wine Garden versus United States 865F.3D 4854, Second Circuit 2017. In 1994, Congress recodified this provision, moving it to US code 18, section 3283 with identical language. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, pub.l, Number 103-322, Title 33, section 330018A, statute 108, 1796-2149, codified at US code 18,

5:21section 32831994. Within a decade, Congress began to view even the extended statute of limitations period in 1994 version of the 3283 as an adequate in many cases because it released from criminal liability sex abusers whose crimes were not brought to the attention of federal authorities until after their victims turned 25. Wine Garden 865F.3D at 54, accordingly in 2003, Congress enacted a provision titled no statute of limitations for child abduction and sex crimes, which amended section 3283 to read no statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a child under the age of 18 shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child. Prosecutorial remedies and tools against the exploitation of children today act of 2003,

6:23the Protect Act. pub.l, Number 10821, Title 2, section 202, 117, statute 650, 660 codified at US code 18, section 3283, 2003. In 2006, Congress enacted a provision titled longer statute of limitations for human trafficking related offenses and subtitled modification of statute applicable to offense against children, which further amended section 3283 to its current form to permit the prosecution of such offenses during the lifetime of the victim or 10 years after the offense, whichever is longer. Violence against women and Department of Justice reauthorization act of 2006, pub.l, Number 109-162, Title 11, section 1182c, 19, statute 2960, 3126 codified at US code 18, section 3283, 2006. Later in 2006, Congress enacted US code 18,

7:30section 3299 in a provision titled no limitation for prosecution of felony sex offenses, which provides that notwithstanding any other law, an indictment may be found or any information instituted at any time without limitation for any offense under section 1201 involving a minor victim and for any felony under chapter 109A and 10 except for section 2257 and 2257A or 117 or section 1591. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 pub.l, Number 109-248, Title 2, section 211-120, statute 587-666, codified at US code 18, section 3299-2006. 3. Retro Activity Under Land Graph In Land Graph, for his USI Film Products, 511-US244-1994, the Supreme Court set forth the two part

8:35framework for determining whether a statute may be applied retroactively. At the first step, if Congress expressly prescribed that a statute applies retroactively to the antecedent conduct, the inquiry ends in the court enforces a statute as it is written, save for constitutional concerns. Winegarten, 865, F.3D at 54 and 55. If however the statute is ambiguous or contains no express command regarding retroactivity, then the court must turn to the second step where a reviewing court must determine whether applying the statute to the antecedent conduct would create presumptively impermissible retroactive effects. Idea 55, if it would, then the court shall not apply the statute retroactively absent clear congressional intent to the contrary. If it would not, then the court shall apply the statute to antecedent conduct. Be the discussion. One, there was no impermissible retroactivity in applying Section 3283 to Maxwell. Maxwell's claims at the

9:39District Court erred by applying Section 3283's 2003 amendment to her six counts of conviction, i.e. counts three, four, and six because they involve conduct that predated the amendment. As an initial matter, this argument ignores the fact that counts three and six both charge continuing offenses that continued into 2004, thus post dating, Section 3283's amendment, moreover under the land graph framework in the 2003 amendment properly applies to pre-enactment criminal conduct that still could have been timely prosecuted at the time of the enactment, as was the case here. A, there was no retroactivity as to counts three and six. As an initial matter counts three and six both charge conduct that continued through 2004, i.e. after the 2003 amendment to Section 3283, and thus present no retroactivity concerns. For conspiracy charges

10:40requiring proof of an overt act, including U.S. Code 18, Section 371, the Conspiracy Statute at Issue here, the Statute of Limitations runs from the date of the last overt act and furtherance of the Conspiracy United States versus Monaco 194 F.3D 381 387 and 2nd Circuit 1999. According to the United States versus Ben Zivvy 242 F.3D 89 97 2nd Circuit 2001. Similarly for a continuing substantive offense, the Statute of Limitations only begins to run out when the crime is complete, meaning when the conduct has run its course, United States versus Epolydo 543 F.3D 2546 2nd Circuit 2008. Here the indictment alleged the conspiracy charged and counts three and the sex trafficking offense charged in count six continued through 2004. A 127 through 132, C also A 123 and 124

11:47131 and 32 describing conduct through 2004 involving victim four. Thus the Statute of Limitations for these two counts did not begin to run until 2004. Well after Congress enacted the 2003 amendment to Section 3283. Maxwell's arguments about retroactivity are therefore in applicable to count three and six. All right folks we're going to wrap up this episode here and in the next episode discussing the topic we're going to pick up where we left off and that's with applying Section 3283 to Maxwell complies with Land Graph. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. Dave Roberts here there you are surrounded by fans sharing wings, sharing drinks, high-fiving random strangers. Everybody remembers the game nobody remembers the guy coughing behind you until a few days later at 2 a.m. you wake up with the fever and your throats on fire. Now what? Urgent care, clothes, ER, slam, telehealth, maybe but the pharmacies close you needed a medical

12:52emergency kit. These aren't first aid kits they contain essential prescriptions used for over 30 common conditions. Sinus and ear infection, UTI, stomach bug, travelers diarrhea and more. On hand before you need them. Use your doctor-developed guidebook to select the right prescription or call their telemedicine doctor standing by. It's like an urgent care and drug store at home. When you're sick traveling or stranded you'll wish you ordered a medical emergency kit. Order online in minutes and it's shipped to your door and say $45 with my promo code blue at urgentcare kit.com slash blue that's promo code blue at urgentcare kit.com slash blue. What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're getting right back to the United States government's brief in a response to Golan Maxwell's attempt to appeal her sentence be applying section 3283 to Maxwell complies with land graph. Furthermore, under the land graph framework the 2003 amendment to

13:53section 3283 properly applies to pre-enactment conduct for which the statute of limitations had not expired at the time the amendment was passed because the statute of limitations had not expired when Congress amended section 3283 in 2003. That amendment extended the limitations period for prosecuting Maxwell rendering the charges timely. I land graph step one at step one of the land graph analysis. The question is whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach land graph 511 US at 280 one evaluating Congress's intent at step one this court has considered both statutory text and legislative history in our e enter more acceptance company secretary litigation enterprise 391 F dot 3d 401 406 408 second circuit 2004 here the text in history of section 3283

14:53establish that Congress intended to extend the time to bring charges of child sexual abuse in cases where the limitation periods had not yet expired prior to 2003 any child sex abuse offense could be prosecuted until the victim reached the age of 25 years at which point the statute of limitations then in effect would bar prosecution in 2003's amendment which was titled no statute of limitations for child abductions and sex crimes pub L number 108 through 21 section 202 117 statute 660 Congress explicitly provided that no statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for such an offense shall preclude such prosecution during the life of a child US code 18 section 3283 2003 the amendment draws no distinction between pre enactment and post enactment conduct instead as judge Nathan explained by stating that no statute of limitations that would

15:55otherwise preclude prosecution of these offenses will apply the amendments plain language unambiguously requires that it apply to prosecutions for offenses committed before the date of enactment thus the breath of the text shows that Congress intended to extend the statute of limitations even for a pre enactment conduct United States vs. Jeffries 405 F dot 3d 682 684 eighth circuit 2005 reaching same conclusions as section 3283's predecessor based on similar title and wording of statute CF Enterprise 391 F dot 3d at 407 describing provision that no limitation shall terminate the period within which suit may be filed as example of statute reflecting clear congressional intent to apply to pre enactment conduct legislative history confirms this conclusion in initially enacting a special statute of limitations for child sex abuse offenses Congress sought to make it

16:58easier to prosecute offenders who commit sex crimes that may be difficult to detect quickly wine garden 865 F dot 3d at 54 but that limitation period proved to be inadequate in many cases HR conference number 108 through 66 at 54 telling leave the conference report offered the example of a child rapist who cannot be prosecuted because he was identified as the perpetrator one day after the victim turned 25 given that Congress bemoan those offenders who escape prosecution because the limitation period had expired there is every reason to believe that it intended to preserve the ability to prosecute pre enactment offenders whose limitation periods had not yet expired see the United States versus Cherchief 438 F dot 3d 920 924 9 circuit 2006 concluding that in enacting the 2003 amendment Congress events to clear intent to extend the limitations period Maxwell notes that Congress considered

18:04and rejected a retroactivity clause before enacting the 2003 amendment but as Judge Nathan recognized the legislative history makes clear that Congress abandoned the retroactivity provision because it would have produced unconstitutional results a 152 discussing co-sponsor remarks expressing concern that the proposed retroactivity provision was a doubtful constitutionality because it would have revived the government's authority to prosecute crimes that were previously time barred thus the rejection of the retroactivity clause shows only that Congress intended to limit the protect act to its constitutional applications including past conduct like Maxwell's on which the statute of limitations had not yet expired the reach of the 2003 amendment to section 3283 is clear because Congress has expressly extended the statute of limitations to pre enactment conduct Judge Nathan correctly resolved this analysis at land graph step one in the alternative however the statute is at worst ambiguous if the

19:09court takes that view it should proceed to land graph step two which examines the retroactive effects of the statute to land graph step two as a Supreme Court explained in land graph even absent specific legislative authorization applying a statute to pre enactment conduct is unquestionably proper in many situations 511 US at 273 a statute does not operate retrospectively merely because it is applied in a case arising from conduct and to dating the statutes enactment or upset expectations based on prior law idea 269 instead the question is whether the statute would impair rights a party possessed when he acted increased a party's liability for past conduct or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed idea 280 importantly the fact that a new procedural rule was instituted after the conduct giving rise to the suit does not make the application of the

20:10rule at trial retroactive because parties have diminished reliance interests in matters of procedure and because rules of procedure regulate secondary rather than primary conduct idea 275 in Vernon versus Cassadega Valley Central School District 49 F dot 3d 886 second circuit 1995 this court considered a new statute of limitations that shortened the time to file certain discrimination claims and held that applying the new statute in a case filed after its enactment but a rising out of events that predate its enactment is not impermissibly retroactive under land graph idea 889 and 90 as the court explained the conduct to which the statute of limitations applies is not the primary conduct of the defendants the alleged discrimination but is instead the secondary conduct of the plaintiffs the filing of their suit idea 890 the 2003 amendment to section 3283 likewise applies only to the

21:15secondary conduct of filing a criminal case it does not apply to the primary conduct of Maxwell's child sexual abuse by for example modifying the elements of an offense to criminalize conduct that previously had not constituted a crime see idea 891 land graph in other cases continents treating statutes of limitations differently from statutory provisions that affects substantive rights thus like the new statute in Vernon the 2003 amendment impaired no rights possessed by either party increased neither parties liability nor imposed any new duties with respect to past transactions idea 890 enterprise does not alter this conclusion therefore this court considered whether an amended statute of limitations operated to revive already expired securities fraud claims enterprise 391 f.3d at 405 while acknowledging that under Vernon retroactive application of a revised statute of limitations generally does not have an impermissible retroactive effect the

22:20court concluded that the resurrection of previously timebar claims has an impermissible retroactive effect idea 409 and 410 emphasis removed enterprise has no application here as the limitations period for the charges against Maxwell did not expire before the statute of limitations was extended thus unlike enterprise where a resurrection of expired claims would have stripped defendants of a complete affirmative defense they previously possessed idea 410 here Maxwell never possessed that complete defense judge Nathan correctly concluded that the 2003 amendment accordingly did not deprive Maxwell of any vested rights to be sure this court has observed that there may be colorable arguments that the logic of enterprise extends to criminal cases where the defendants statute of limitations defense had not vested when the limitations period was extended because the extension increases the period of time during which a defendant can be sued thereby increasing a

23:23defendant's liability for past conduct wine garden 865 f.3d at 57 see also United States versus Miller 911 f.3d 638 644 through 646 for a circuit 2018 Dave Roberts here there you are surrounded by fans sharing wings sharing drinks high-fiving random strangers everybody remembers the game nobody remembers the guy coughing behind you until a few days later at 2 a.m. you wake up with the fever and your throats on fire now what urgent care close ER slam telehealth maybe but the pharmacies close you needed a medical emergency kit these aren't first aid kits they contain essential prescriptions use for over 30 common conditions sinus and ear infection UTIs stomach bug travelers diarrhea and more on hand before you need them use your doctor develop guidebook to select the right prescription or call their telemedicine doctor standing by it's like an urgent care and drugstore

24:23at home when you're sick traveling or stranded you'll wish you ordered a medical emergency kit order online in minutes and it's shipped to your door and say 45 dollars with my promo code blue at urgent care kit dot com slash blue that's promo code blue at urgent care kit dot com slash blue discussing potential defense arguments but such a claim runs headlong into the vast weight of retroactivity decisions which recognize that revoking a vested statute of limitations defense is different from retroactively extending the filing period for a still viable claim wine garden 865 f dot 3d at 57 for example in the criminal context there is a consensus that extending a limitations period before prosecution is time barred does not run afoul of the ex post facto clause of the constitution crews verse mypa 773 f dot 3d 138 145 for circuit 2014 see also

25:25stagner 539 us at 632 holding that ex post facto clause does not prevent the state from extending time limits for prosecutions not yet time barred as this court explain long ago while it is unfair and dishonest for the government to assure a man that he has become safe from the pursuit but then with jaw its assurance it is permissible to extend the statute of limitations while the chase is on falter verses united states 23 f dot 2d 420 426 second circuit 1928 l hand j these ex post facto cases are particularly instructive here because land graph and the ex post facto clause are informed by the same retroactivity concerns crews 773 f dot 3d at 145 see also land graph 511 us at 266 citing the ex post facto clause as an expression as the entire retroactivity principle it was applying

26:26thus applying section 3283's 2003 amendment to Maxwell's uninspired charges is permissible land graph as the 10th circuit recently explained with respect to the very same statute of limitations that issue here by extending the unexpired statute of limitations congress did not increase defendants exposure to prosecution retroactively it did not raise the penalty for the charge defense it did not redefine the offense to make it easier to establish it did not expose defendant to criminal prosecution a new it merely altered the ongoing charging period for the conduct that had already exposed him to criminal prosecution defendant was subject to indictment in 2002 before the statutes of limitations were extended and he remained the subject to indictment in 2007 once the changes were made a dead charge was not resurrected and the underlying nature of defendant's potential criminal liability remain the same united states verses piet 45 f 4th circuit 1142 1161 and 62 10 circuit

27:332022 the decisions of other courts of appeals are in accord sure chief 438 f.3d at 922 through 25 jeffries 405 f.3d at 685 max well sites united states verse Richardson 512 f.2d 105 third circuit 1975 and two district court decisions that are bound to follow it br 58 and 59 but Richardson which was decided before land graph is inconsistent with land graph united states verses nader 425 f.supp 3d 619 630 eastern district virginia 2019 specifically Richardson focused on weather congress expressed a clear intention to overcome the presumption against retroactivity 512 f.2d at 106 without engaging in land graph second step i.e. considering whether the statute would have retroactive effect land graph 511

28:34u.s at 280 more over unlike the 2003 amendment the statute at issue and Richardson did not expressly provide that no statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution of the relevant offense shall preclude prosecution under terms of the amended statute in some the statute of limitations for the charges in the indictment had not yet expired when the 2003 amendment to section 32 83 extended the limitations period and judge Nathan correctly determined that applying the 2003 amendment in this case does not create impermissible retroactive effects therefore step 2 of land graph was satisfied and section 32 83 applies retroactively see wine garden 865 f.3d at 55 if a statute would not create impermissible retroactive effects then the court shall apply the statute to antecedent conduct accordingly the charges were timely all right folks we're going to wrap up

29:35this episode right here and in the next episode we're going to pick up where we left off with section 32 83 reaches count 3 and count 4 all of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box what's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles in this episode we're going to pick up where we left off with the United States response in brief to Glein Maxwell's attempt to get an appeal to section 32 83 reaches counts 3 and 4 Maxwell separately argues that section 32 83 does not apply to count 3 and 4 because neither is an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse of a child Maxwell contends at these counts which charged her with transporting a minor with intent that the minor engage in illegal sexual activity and conspiracy to do the same are not offenses involving the sexual abuse of a child because a completed sex acts is not an essential element of either charge but Maxwell does not dispute that

30:39the evidence that trial established that her commission of counts 3 and 4 involve completed sex acts abusing one or more minor victims nor could she as Jane testified that she was in fact sexually abused when transported across state lines including to New York as a minor instead Maxwell insists that counts 3 and 4 do not involve sexual abuse of a child because a completed sex act is not an element of those crimes this argument misreads the relevant statutes and legislative history and runs contrary to the a decision of this court and other courts of appeals a counts 3 and 4 are offenses involving the sexual abuse of a child Maxwell's entire argument is based on a mistaken premise that the phrase offense involving the sexual abuse of a child US code 18 section 32 83 only encompasses crime in which unlawful sexual activity actually took place this flawed proposition ignores relevant statutory definitions which make clear that section 32 83 reaches more broadly to

31:44include offenses in which there were no completed illegal sex act as described above section 32 83 was originally codified at US code 18 section 30509 K the definition of the term sexual abuse is located within the same section for purposes of this section the term sexual abuse includes the employment use persuasion inducement enticement or coercion of a child to engage in or assist another person to engage in sexually explicit conduct or the rape molestation prostitution or other form of sexual exploitation of children or incest with children US code 18 section 3509 A8 the term sexually explicit conduct is in turn defined to mean among other things sexual intercourse including sexual conduct and the term sexual contact means the intentional touching either directly or through clothing of the genitalia anus groin breast inner thigh or buttocks of any person

32:48with the intent to abuse humiliate harassed degrade or arouse a gratifying sexual desire of any person ID section 3509 A9 and A courts have looked into the definition of sexual abuse at fourth and section 3509 A to determine whether the statute of limitations of section 32 83 applies to an offense United States vs. Carpenter 680 F.3D 1101 1103 and 4 9 circuit 2012 We join our sister circuits in looking at subsection 3509 A for a definition of sexual abuse under federal law and find it the appropriate definition to use in applying section 32 83s extended statute of limitations the definition of sexual abuse includes not only actual sexual contact but also the employment use persuasion inducement enticement or coercion of a child to engage in or assist another person to engage in sexual contact US code 18 section 3509 A the breath of the

33:56definition is underscored by congress's use of the word includes in section 3509 A's text which is significant because it makes clear that the examples enumerated in the text are intended to be illustrative not exhaustive Christopher vs. Smith Klein Beacham Court 567 US 142 162 2012 citing burges vs. United States 552 US 124 131 and 3 2008 and the text of section 32 83 goes even further beyond the definition provided in section 3509 by covering any crime involving the sexual abuse of a child congress therefore did not require that a particular statute have actual sexual contact with a minor as an element of its offense but rather swept broadly to cover any crime that in any way involves sexual abuse as broadly defined given this expansive language sexual

34:56abuse as defined here encompasses a wider set of behavior than just rape or other unwanted sexual touching United States vs. Schneider 801 F.3d 186 197 third circuit tooth Dave Roberts here there you are surrounded by fans sharing wings sharing drinks high-fiving random strangers everybody remembers the game nobody remembers the guy coughing behind you until a few days later at 2 a.m. you wake up with the fever and your throats on fire now what urgent care close ER slam telehealth maybe but the pharmacies close you needed a medical emergency kit these aren't first aid kits they contain essential prescriptions used for over 30 common conditions sinus and ear infection UTIs stomach bug travelers diarrhea and more on hand before you need them use your doctor develop guidebook to select the right prescription or call their telemedicine doctor standing by it's like an urgent care and drugstore at home when you're sick traveling or stranded you wish you ordered a medical emergency kit order online in minutes and it's

35:59shipped to your door and say 45 dollars with my promo code blue at urgentcare kit dot com slash blue that's promo code blue at urgentcare kit dot com slash blue 2015 thus courts throughout the country have concluded that section 3283 applies to a variety of offenses that do not require a sexual act between a defendant and a specific child united states versus vickers number 13 CR 128 rj a 2014 WL 183 82 55 at 11 WD and Y May 8 2014 or physical contact with the victim carpenters 680 f dot 3d at 1103 according to the United States versus deal 775 714 725 circuit 2015 section 3283's definition thus captures crimes of intent where a perpetrator seeks to have a minor in gauge and sexual contact even if such sexual contact does not occur transportation

37:04of a minor within 10 to engage in illegal sex act as charged in count four and conspiracy to commit the same as charged in count three fall comfortably within that definition even though a completed sex act is not required to commit those two crimes count four has sexual abuse as an element because it requires the defendant to induce a child to engage in illegal sexual activity by transporting the minor across state lines with an intent that the child engage in an illegal sex act US code 18 section 30509 a 8 and count three as a conspiracy to commit count four is an offense involving such sexual abuse idea 32 83 see United States versus Nc number 08 CR 253 WWE 2010 WL 235 1484 at 2 and 3 Connecticut June 7 2010 collecting cases interpreting the terms sexual abuse to encompass

38:05all crimes that would logically relate to the common understanding of sexual abuse even when found in chapters 110 sexual exploitation and other abuse of children and 117 transportation of illegal sexual activity and related crimes of title 18 Schneider 801 F dot 3d at 196 and 97 holding that section 32 83 applied to defendant convicted of traveling with the purpose of engaging in sex with a minor victim and violation of US code 18 section 24 23 B accordingly even considering only the elements of the offenses counts three and four fall squarely within section 32 83's definition of an offense involving sexual abuse of a child B Maxwell's argument for use of a categorical approach lacks merit because counts three and four qualify as offenses involving the sexual abuse of a child US code 18 section 32 83 even without resort to the facts of the case the court

39:09need not to address Maxwell's claim that the categorical approach applies in this context but the arguments Maxwell advances in support of her claims are meritless in any event Maxwell first relies on section 32 83's use of the phrase offense involving the sexual abuse of a child which she contends dictates looking only to the elements of the offense but as this court has already recognized section 32 83's text reaches beyond the offense and its legal elements to the conduct involved in the offense a linguistic expansion that shows congresses intent for courts to look beyond the bare legal charges and deciding whether section 32 83 applied winegarten 865 F dot 3d at 59 and 60 see also knee je win versus holder 557 us 29 32 38 2009 holding that statute that includes an offense involves phrase is consistent with the circumstance specific approach indeed the third

40:11circuit has expressly rejected an essential ingredient test comparable to the categorical approach and instead applied case specific analysis to determine that section 32 83 applied to travel within 10 to commit an illegal sex act with a minor in violation of US code section 24 23 B Schneider 801 F dot 3d at 196 and 197 Maxwell also argues that the clearer weight of authority holds that statutes employing similar language should be read through a categorical rather than case specific lens but the decision she cites involves statutes with other features favoring the categorical approach which are notably absent here some cases involve statutes that define the crime of violence as an offense that either has an element the use of physical force or by its nature involves the substantial risk of force language that invokes an elements based approach united states versus Davis 139 Supreme Court 2319 2328 29 2019 Leacal versus Ashcroff 543 US 1 and 7 2004

41:22some cases concerned the definition of an aggravated felony under federal immigration law Kawashima versus holder 565 US 478 Leacal 543 US at 7 a context in which the categorical approach traditionally applies because the inquiry is whether the aliens prior conviction meets the definition winegarten 865 F dot 3d at 59 and United States versus Morgan 393 F dot 3d 192 DC Circuit 2004 is likewise distinguishable as it involved a venue statute presenting significantly different concerns than those presented here Maxwell also relies on a trio of cases chief among them bridges versus United States 346 US 209 1953 in bridges the Supreme Court applied an essential ingredient test to determine whether an offense qualified for a provision that extended the criminal limitations period for certain fraud offenses winegarten 865 F dot 3d

42:27at 59 and 10 but as this court has explained bridges is distinguishable because the Supreme Court there believed applying the restrictive essential ingredient test to determine if an offense involved the defrauding of the United States affected Congress's specific intent to limit the extended limitations period to only a few offenses while Congress had the opposite intention for section 3283 ID the other two cases United States versus Sharton 285 US 518 1932 and United States versus Novak 271 US 201 1926 are distinguishable on similar grounds in any event the essential ingredient test does not help Maxwell as discussed above an offense involving the sexual abuse of a child US code 18 section 3283 must be read in light of the definition of sexual abuse set forth in section 30509 which encompasses a wide range of conduct that is not limited to actual

43:29sexual contact with the child counts three and four each have an essential ingredient that fits with a broad definition see super a point to be 2 a finally neither deal nor United States versus contentos 651 F dot 3d 8098 circuit 2011 supports the use of a categorical approach in each decision the court concluded that section 3283 apply to the subject offenses without considering the specific facts of the crime but in either case did the court consider whether a categorical approach was required let alone hold that it was as noted above it is undisputed that the evidence that trial established that Maxwell's commission of counts three and four involve completed sex acts abusing one or more minor victims Jane testified that she was in fact sexually abused when transported across state lines including to New York as a minor accordingly counts three and four qualify as offenses involving the sexual abuse of a child both by their statutory terms and based on the

44:33specific facts of this case all right folks we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode we're going to pick up with point three the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that juror 50 could be fairer and impartial notwithstanding his inadvertent mistakes on his juror questionnaire all of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box Dave Roberts here there you are surrounded by fans sharing wings sharing drinks high-fiving random strangers everybody remembers the game nobody remembers the guy coughing behind you until a few days later at 2 a.m. you wake up with the fever and your throats on fire now what urgent care close ER slam telehealth maybe but the pharmacies close you needed a medical emergency these aren't first aid kits they contain essential prescriptions used for over 30 common conditions sinus and ear infection uti stomach bug travelers diarrhea and more on hand before you need them use your doctor develop guidebook to select the right prescription or call their

45:35telemedicine doctor standing by it's like an urgent care and drugstore at home when you're sick traveling or stranded you'll wish you ordered a medical emergency kit order online in minutes and it's shipped to your door and say 45 dollars with my promo code blue at urgent care kit.com slash blue that's promo code blue at urgent care kit.com slash blue