EFTA00028903Set 8
2021-01-1122p6,173w
Bonjorno,
494 U.S. 827 (1990) 3
Kawashima v. Holder,
565 U.S. 478 (2012) 11
Landgraf v. USI Film Products,
511 U.S. 244 (1994) passim
Leocal v. Ashcroft ... after analyzing
congressional intent under the two-step framework required by Landgraf v. US! Film Products,
511 U.S. 244 (1994)—and to even mention Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity ... Amendment—improperly excluded legislative history from its analysis.
No court has applied the Landgraf framework, considered the legislative history, and still
concluded that Congress intended the 2003 Amendment to overcome
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00028903.pdf
EFTA00103709Set 9
2018-08-0925p6,523w
Bonjorno,
494 U.S. 827 (1990) 6
Kawashima v. Holder,
565 U.S. 478 (2012) 13
Landgraf v. USI Film Prod.,
511 U.S. 244 (1994) passim
Lattab v. Ashcroft,
384 F.3d ... stressed a strong "presumption against
retroactive legislation" that is "deeply rooted in our jurisprudence." Landgraf v. USI Film Prod.,
511 U.S. 244, 265 (1994) (emphasis added). "Tillie principle that ... punishment
because of acts in the far-distant past." Id. at 114-15.
In Landgraf, the Supreme Court articulated a two-step framework to evaluate the
proposed retroactive application
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00103709.pdf
EFTA00213246Set 9
2010-03-2929p9,525w
Bowen, 488
U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landgraf v. USI Film
Products, 114 S.Ct ... statute in effect during the time of the alleged conduct
is to apply. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, supra, at 1493, ("A statement that a statute
will become effective ... civil" in nature, under the analysis provided by the United States Supreme Court in
Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (1994), pertaining to civil
statutes
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00213246.pdf
EFTA01099901Set 9
2006-07-2631p10,619w
Bowen 488
U.S., at 208, 109 S.Q., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landgraf v. USI Film
Products, 114 S.Ct ... statute in effect during the time of the alleged conduct
is to apply. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, supra, at 1493, ("A statement that a statute
will become effective ... civil" in nature, under the analysis provided by the United States Supreme Court in
Landgraf v. US1 Film Product% 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (1994), pertaining to civil
statutes
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01099901.pdf
EFTA00207722Set 9
2010-03-2929p9,495w
Bowen, 488
U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landgraf v. USI Film
Products, 114 S.Ct ... statute in effect during the time of the alleged conduct
is to apply. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, supra, at 1493, ("A statement that a statute
will become effective ... civil" in nature, under the analysis provided by the United States Supreme Court in
Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (1994), pertaining to civil
statutes
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00207722.pdf
EFTA01100005Set 9
2006-07-2643p14,726w
Bowen, 488
U.S., at 208, 109 5.0., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landgraf v. USI Film
Products 114 S.Ct ... statute in effect during the time of the alleged conduct
is to apply. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, supra, at 1493, ("A statement that a statute
EFTA01100016
Jane ... effect at
the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies.
As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,3
When a case implicates a federal statute
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01100005.pdf
EFTA00222862Set 9
2009-05-2211p3,370w
stating that it
applies to pre-enactment conduct, the first step in the Landgraf analysis, or a
statute may be silent regarding temporal reach, in which case courts
apply ... amended statute applies to
proceedings commenced on or after enactment. See Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 259-
60, 114 S.Ct. at 1494 (stating that, if had Congress intended retroactive
application, then ... proceedings pending on or commenced after
the date of enactment,' " referenced in Landgraf, "unambiguously addresses the
temporal reach of the statute" (citation omitted)); Lindh v. Murphy
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00222862.pdf
EFTA01085256Set 9
2010-04-1310p2,952w
Like EPSTEIN, Plaintiff also cites on the United States Supreme Court case of
Landgraf v. USI Film Products , 511 U.S. 244, 280, (1994), as a landmark decision in
determining whether ... supporting the argument set forth by Defendant, Plaintiff describes
the following language from the Landgraf decision as "a two step process for resolving
retroactivity issues," (Response, p. 13):
When ... either attempting to mislead the Court or
simply did not read Defendant's motion. Landgraf is discussed extensively in
EPSTEIN's motion. See Part I.B. and I.C. wherein Defendant first
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01085256.pdf
EFTA01116559Set 9
2010-04-1310p2,748w
Like EPSTEIN, Plaintiff also cites on the United States Supreme Court case of
Landgraf v. IJSI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280, (1994), as a landmark decision in
determining whether ... Case No. 08-CV-80893-Marra-Johnson
Page 6
the following language from the Landgraf decision as "a two step process for resolving
retroactivity issues," (Response, p. 13):
When ... either attempting to mislead the Court or
simply did not read Defendant's motion. Landgraf is discussed extensively in
EPSTEIN's motion. See Part I.B. and I.C. wherein Defendant first
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01116559.pdf
EFTA01099943Set 9
2006-07-2632p10,791w
Bowen, 488
U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landgraf v. USI Film
Products, 114 S.Ct ... statute in effect during the time of the alleged conduct
is to apply. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, supra, at 1493, ("A statement that a statute
will become effective ... civil" in nature, under the analysis provided by the United Stales Supreme Court in
Landgraf v. USI Film Product% 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (1994), pertaining to civil
statutes
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01099943.pdf
EFTA00611590Set 9
2010-04-1310p2,663w
Like EPSTEIN, Plaintiff also cites on the United States Supreme Court case of
Landgraf v. IJSI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280, (1994), as a landmark decision in
determining whether ... Case No. 08-CV-80893-Marra-Johnson
Page 6
the following language from the Landgraf decision as "a two step process for resolving
retroactivity issues," (Response, p. 13):
When ... either attempting to mislead the Court or
simply did not read Defendant's motion. Landgraf is discussed extensively in
EPSTEIN's motion. See Part I.B. and I.C. wherein Defendant first
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00611590.pdf
EFTA00102999Set 9
2019-03-26239p78,398w
Section 3283 Applies Retroactively 26
1. The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step One of Landgraf 28
2. The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step Two of Landgraf 32
C. The Defendant's Crimes ... Kungys v. United States,
485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222
Landgraf v. USI Film Products,
511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36,41,42
Leocal v. Ashcroft
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00102999.pdf
EFTA00611602Set 9
2010-04-1310p2,933w
Like EPSTEIN, Plaintiff also cites on the United States Supreme Court case of
Landgraf v. USI Film Products , 511 U.S. 244, 280, (1994), as a landmark decision in
determining whether ... supporting the argument set forth by Defendant, Plaintiff describes
the following language from the Landgraf decision as "a two step process for resolving
retroactivity issues," (Response, p. 13):
When ... either attempting to mislead the Court or
simply did not read Defendant's motion. Landgraf is discussed extensively in
EPSTEIN's motion. See Part I.B. and I.C. wherein Defendant first
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00611602.pdf
EFTA00105663Set 9
2021-07-1234p11,087w
step framework to determine whether a federal
statute applies to past conduct. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994).
Courts look first to the language ... conduct unless doing so would create impermissible retroactive effects. Id.
The Court begins with Landgraf s first step. To assess a statute's meaning here, courts
must consider the text ... respect to transactions or considerations already past.' Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 56 (quoting
Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 290). Thus, applying a new statute of limitations to previously time-
barred claims
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00105663.pdf
EFTA00092755Set 9
2021-07-1234p11,087w
step framework to determine whether a federal
statute applies to past conduct. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994).
Courts look first to the language ... conduct unless doing so would create impermissible retroactive effects. Id.
The Court begins with Landgraf s first step. To assess a statute's meaning here, courts
must consider the text ... respect to transactions or considerations already past.' Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 56 (quoting
Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 290). Thus, applying a new statute of limitations to previously time-
barred claims
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00092755.pdf
EFTA00154640Set 9
2021-07-1234p11,087w
step framework to determine whether a federal
statute applies to past conduct. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994).
Courts look first to the language ... conduct unless doing so would create impermissible retroactive effects. Id.
The Court begins with Landgraf s first step. To assess a statute's meaning here, courts
must consider the text ... respect to transactions or considerations already past.' Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 56 (quoting
Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 290). Thus, applying a new statute of limitations to previously time-
barred claims
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00154640.pdf
EFTA00207677Set 9
2006-07-2636p12,694w
Bowen, 488
U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landgraf v. USI Film
Products, 114 S.Ct ... civil" in nature, under the analysis provided by the United States Supreme Court in
Landgraf v. USI Film Products 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (1994), pertaining to civil
statutes ... effect at
the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies.
As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,3
When a case implicates a federal statute
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00207677.pdf
EFTA00285631Set 9
2018-08-0770p17,816w
remedy. The support for that, your Honor, is the U.S.
12 Supreme Court in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, which I cited
13 in my papers for a different proposition ... provision.
21 The U.S. Supreme Court spent a great deal of time in
22 Landgraf, explaining that adding a cause of action for
23 damages -- as was done in this ... Weingarten v. United States, 865 F.3d 48, 54-55 (2d Cir.
10 2017) (citing Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244,
11 (1994)). Therefore, the defendants conclude that
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00285631.pdf
EFTA00085225Set 9
2021-07-1234p11,087w
step framework to determine whether a federal
statute applies to past conduct. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994).
Courts look first to the language ... conduct unless doing so would create impermissible retroactive effects. Id.
The Court begins with Landgraf s first step. To assess a statute's meaning here, courts
must consider the text ... respect to transactions or considerations already past.' Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 56 (quoting
Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 290). Thus, applying a new statute of limitations to previously time-
barred claims
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00085225.pdf
EFTA00029540Set 8
2021-07-1234p11,084w
step framework to determine whether a federal
statute applies to past conduct. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994).
Courts look first to the language ... conduct unless doing so would create impermissible retroactive effects. Id.
The Court begins with Landgraf s first step. To assess a statute's meaning here, courts
must consider the text ... respect to transactions or considerations already past.'" Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 56 (quoting
Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 290). Thus, applying a new statute of limitations to previously time-
barred claims
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00029540.pdf