18 U.S.C. § 3283
Offenses against children
No statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child, or for ten years after the offense, whichever is longer.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1948–2025 · leading case: United States v. McElhaney, 54 M.J. 120 (C.A.A.F. 2000).
United States v. McElhaney, 54 M.J. 120 (C.A.A.F. 2000). “WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO TRIALS IN FEDERAL COURTS FOR OFFENSES INVOLVING THE SEXUAL OR PHYSICAL ABUSE OF A CHILD ( 18 USC § 3283 ) APPLIES TO TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL IN LIEU OF ARTICLE 43,…”
United States v. Miller, 911 F.3d 638 (1st Cir. 2018). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (1994). Since the victim in this case would have turned twenty-five no later than sometime in 2007, the statute of limitations would have expired during that year.”
United States v. Lopez de Victoria, 66 M.J. 67 (C.A.A.F. 2008). “2000), we declined to apply the civilian child abuse statute of limitations contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3283 to courts-martial. Pointing out that the military and civilian systems of criminal justice are separate as a matter of law and that, as such, great caution should be…”
Weingarten v. United States, 865 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2017). “Weingarten’s § 2255 petition argued, inter alia, that his trial counsel failed to provide constitutionally effective assistance when they conceded before trial that the charges were timely under the applicable statute of limitations, 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (2003). Weingar-ten contends…”
United States v. Kenneth Schneider, 801 F.3d 186 (3rd Cir. 2015). “The District Court denied this motion, holding that the indictment was timely under 18 U.S.C. § 3283 , a special provision extending the statute of limitations for offenses involving the sexual abuse of a child.”
United States v. McElhaney, 50 M.J. 819 (A.F.C.C.A. 1999). “In addition, the military judge ruled that the specifications alleging sodomy and indecent acts between 1987 and 1988 were not barred because a statute of limitations for offenses against children, found at 18 U.S.C. § 3283 , was applicable to military members.”
United States v. David Diehl, 775 F.3d 714 (5th Cir. 2015). “*720 However, the government argues that an offense under § 2251(a) falls within the extended statute of limitations for child abuse offenses found in 18 U.S.C. § 3283 . At the time of Diehl’s offense, § 3283 provided: “No statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude…”
United States v. Leo Sure Chief, Jr., 438 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2006). “18 U.S.C. § 3283 . In 1990, Congress enacted a separate statute of limitations allowing the prosecution of sexual abuse crimes until the victim reached 25 years of age.”
Miller v. United States, 77 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2023). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (1994). The legal landscape shifted in 2003, however, when Congress extended the limitations period to allow charges to be brought throughout the life of a child victim.”
United States v. Sills, 56 M.J. 556 (A.F.C.C.A. 2001). “18 U.S.C. § 3283 (1994). It is our task to apply the statute of limitations as it is written.”
United States v. Rollins, 61 M.J. 338 (C.A.A.F. 2005). “In McElhaney , the court concluded that Article 43(b)(1) had been supplanted in specified cases by 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (2000), which provided an extended statute of limitations for certain child abuse offenses tried in federal civilian courts.”
United States v. Brown, 498 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2007). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3283 . The Marion Court noted, however, “that the statute of limitations does not fully define [a person’s] rights with respect to the events occurring prior to indictment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.