Weingarten v. United States, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13586

Background

In 1997 Israel Weingarten, then 16-year-old daughter (Doe) was sexually abused during international travel to the United States and Belgium; Doe reported the abuse to her mother in 1997 but federal indictment came in 2008.
In 2008 a federal grand jury charged Weingarten under 18 U.S.C. § 2423 (transporting and traveling in foreign commerce to engage in sexual conduct with a minor). He was convicted and ultimately sentenced to 30 years.
At the pretrial stage Weingarten conceded the indictment was timely under the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (life-of-the-child limitations extension) while arguing due-process and territorial-nexus defenses; counsel did not press a statute-of-limitations challenge.
On collateral review under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Weingarten argued trial counsel was ineffective for conceding timeliness and not arguing (1) the 2003 § 3283 amendment should not apply retroactively to 1997 conduct, and (2) § 2423 is not categorically a “child sexual abuse” offense and thus the default five-year limitations period (§ 3282) applied.
The District Court denied § 2255 relief; the Second Circuit affirmed, holding counsel’s strategic choice to forgo the statute-of-limitations arguments was objectively reasonable given unsettled law and non-obviousness of the claimed errors.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Weingarten)	Defendant's Argument (United States)	Held
Whether the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283 applies retroactively to 1997 conduct	2003 § 3283 does not clearly state retroactive effect; counsel should have argued it didn’t apply, barring prosecution	2003 language ("No statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution…") supports retroactive application to extend limitations	Counsel reasonably declined this novel/complex retroactivity argument; not ineffective assistance
Whether § 3283 or the default § 3282 applies to § 2423 offenses (categorical approach)	§ 3283’s phrasing requires a categorical elements-based inquiry; § 2423 is an intent offense and not categorically a child-sex-abuse offense, so § 3282 applies	§ 3283 targets offenses that "involve" child abuse and contemplates a conduct-based inquiry; categorical approach is not obviously required	It was not obvious that the categorical approach applied; counsel’s decision not to press this was reasonable
Whether counsel must raise every non-frivolous argument (ineffective assistance scope)	Failure to present statute-of-limitations claims was deficient and prejudicial	Strategic selection of strongest issues is permissible; counsel need not present every colorable claim	Court reaffirmed Strickland/Jones: counsel can reasonably prioritize issues; no deficient performance found
Whether Weingarten suffered prejudice under Strickland (but-for effect)	Had counsel argued limitations, indictment would have been dismissed and convictions avoided	Given unsettled law, success on those arguments was uncertain; no reasonable probability of a different outcome	No prejudice shown; § 2255 relief denied

Key Cases Cited

Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (retroactivity framework for statutes)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance of counsel standard)
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (counsel not required to raise every nonfrivolous issue)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (background on categorical approach rationale)
Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (limitations and ex post facto concerns)
Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (modern categorical approach discussion)
United States v. Enterprise Mortgage Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig., 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir.) (retroactivity and extension of limitations in civil context)
Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. Sch. Dist., 49 F.3d 886 (2d Cir.) (statutes of limitations and retroactivity discussion)
United States v. Leo Sure Chief, 438 F.3d 920 (9th Cir.) (holding 2003 § 3283 applied retroactively to extend live claims)
Lynch v. Dolce, 789 F.3d 303 (2d Cir.) (Strickland presumption of reasonable strategy)