Epstein Secrets

y begins with the plain and unambiguous language of the statutory text. CBS, Inc. v. Prime Time 24 Venture, 245 F.3d 1217 (111h Cir. 2001)• U.S. v. Castroneves, 2009 WL 528251, *3 (S.D. Fla. 2009), citing Reeves v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2008); and Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d at 610 ("Whe

ng on or commenced after the date of enactment of this Act,' " "might possibly have qualified as a clear statement for retroactive effect" (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 260, 114 S.Ct. at 1494)); Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298, 307-08, 114 S.Ct. 1510, 1517, 128 L.Ed.2d 274 (1994) (noting

ly retroactively. Congress may prescribe the temporal reach of a statute by 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 tho judicial presumption against retroactivity. This pres

y begins with the plain and unambiguous language of the statutory text. CBS, Inc. v. Prime Time 24 Venture, 245 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Castroneves, 2009 WL 528251, *3 (S.D. Fla. 2009), citing Reeves v. Astrue 526 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2008); and Smith v. Husband 376 F.Supp.2d at 610 ("When

n. It is an axiom of law that "retroactivity is not favored in the law." Bowen, 488 U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497, 511 U.S. 244, 265-66 (1994): ... the presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in ou

y begins with the plain and unambiguous language of the statutory text. CBS, Inc. v. Prime Time 24 Venture, 245 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Castroneves, 2009 WL 528251, *3 (S.D. Fla. 2009), citing Reeves v. Astrue 526 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2008); and Smith v. Husband 376 F.Supp.2d at 610 ("When

n. It is an axiom of law that "retroactivity is not favored in the law." Bowen, 488 U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497, 511 U.S. 244, 265-66 (1994): ... the presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in ou

quiry begins with the plain and unambiguous language of the statutory text. CBS, Inc.'. Prime Time 24 Venture, 245 F.3d 1217 (1 Cir. 2001); U.S.'. Castroneves 2009 WL 528251, *3 (S.D. Fla. 2009), citing Reeves Astrue, 526 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2008); and Smith I, Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d at 610 ("When i

entitled to a determination as a matter of law that the statute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landaraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply

uiry begins with the plain and unambiguous language of the statutory text. CBS. Inc.'. Prime Time 24 Venture 245 F.3d 1217 (I 1th Cir. 2001)• U.S.. Castroneves, 2009 WL 528251, •3 (S.D. Fla. 2009), citing Reeves Astrue, 526 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2008); and Smith I. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d at 610 ("When

entitled to a determination as a matter of law that the statute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landaraf the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply