DOJ-OGR-00001456.jpg
672 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
6
Organizations
2
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
672 KB
Summary
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, addresses post-conviction bail proceedings concerning 'Maxwell.' It clarifies that an Order regarding security checks at the MDC is not a bail determination and that Maxwell's 'renewed motion' for bail is substantively meritless. The document affirms Judge Nathan's prior findings that Maxwell is a risk of flight and that no bail conditions could reasonably assure her appearance in court.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell |
Party whose motion and appeal are being discussed; found to be a risk of flight.
|
|
| Hochevar |
Party in the cited case United States v. Hochevar.
|
|
| Stack |
Party in the cited case Stack v. Boyle.
|
|
| Boyle |
Party in the cited case Stack v. Boyle.
|
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Judge who made findings regarding Maxwell's risk of flight and bail conditions.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Government agency |
Party in the cited case United States v. Hochevar.
|
| Court of Appeals | Government agency (judicial body) |
The court to which appeals from detention orders are made.
|
| MDC | Detention facility |
Location where security checks related to an Order Maxwell annexed to her motion were discussed.
|
| This Court | Government agency (judicial body) |
The court issuing the current document, which has held Judge Nathan did not err.
|
| district court | Government agency (judicial body) |
The court where motions are initially made and whose orders are appealed.
|
| Government | Government agency |
The opposing party in Maxwell's case, which established Maxwell's risk of flight.
|
Timeline (4 events)
Post-conviction bail proceedings.
Filing notice of appeal for a detention order.
party appealing
Maxwell's 'renewed motion' being deemed substantively meritless by 'This Court'.
Judge Nathan finding, three times, that the Government established Maxwell is a risk of flight and no bail conditions could reasonably assure her appearance in court.
Relationships (1)
Judge Nathan made findings regarding Maxwell's risk of flight and bail conditions in her case, and 'This Court' concluded Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion or err in her determinations.
Key Quotes (4)
"given the findings that must be made in order to warrant release, it is generally more appropriate that the motion be made initially in the district court."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001456.jpg
Quote #1
"[t]he proper procedure for challenging bail as unlawfully fixed is by motion for reduction of bail and appeal to the Court of Appeals from an order denying such motion"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001456.jpg
Quote #2
"a copy of the district court’s order . . . as soon as practicable after filing the notice of appeal"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001456.jpg
Quote #3
"renewed motion"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001456.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,617 characters)
Case 21-770, Document 73, 05/27/2021, 3109708, Page16 of 24
the context of post-conviction bail proceedings, “given the findings that must be
made in order to warrant release, it is generally more appropriate that the motion be
made initially in the district court.” United States v. Hochevar, 214 F.3d 342, 344
(2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam); see Fed. R. App. P. 9(a) (providing for appeals from
detention orders); cf. generally Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 6 (1951) (explaining,
before passage of the Bail Reform Act, that “[t]he proper procedure for challenging
bail as unlawfully fixed is by motion for reduction of bail and appeal to the Court of
Appeals from an order denying such motion”). The Order Maxwell annexes to her
motion—an Order regarding security checks at the MDC (Mot. Ex. B)—is not a bail
determination, and Maxwell has not taken an appeal from that Order. See Fed. R.
App. P. 9(a) (requiring that a party appealing a detention order must file “a copy of
the district court’s order . . . as soon as practicable after filing the notice of appeal”).
No bail determination is properly before this Court.
made in order to warrant release, it is generally more appropriate that the motion be
made initially in the district court.” United States v. Hochevar, 214 F.3d 342, 344
(2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam); see Fed. R. App. P. 9(a) (providing for appeals from
detention orders); cf. generally Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 6 (1951) (explaining,
before passage of the Bail Reform Act, that “[t]he proper procedure for challenging
bail as unlawfully fixed is by motion for reduction of bail and appeal to the Court of
Appeals from an order denying such motion”). The Order Maxwell annexes to her
motion—an Order regarding security checks at the MDC (Mot. Ex. B)—is not a bail
determination, and Maxwell has not taken an appeal from that Order. See Fed. R.
App. P. 9(a) (requiring that a party appealing a detention order must file “a copy of
the district court’s order . . . as soon as practicable after filing the notice of appeal”).
No bail determination is properly before this Court.
31. In any event, Maxwell’s “renewed motion” is substantively
meritless. This Court has already held that Judge Nathan did not commit clear error
in finding, three times, that the Government established by a preponderance of the
evidence that Maxwell is a risk of flight and no bail conditions could reasonably
assure her appearance in court. This Court has also concluded that Judge Nathan
did not abuse her discretion or clearly err in determining that Maxwell’s conditions
meritless. This Court has already held that Judge Nathan did not commit clear error
in finding, three times, that the Government established by a preponderance of the
evidence that Maxwell is a risk of flight and no bail conditions could reasonably
assure her appearance in court. This Court has also concluded that Judge Nathan
did not abuse her discretion or clearly err in determining that Maxwell’s conditions
16
DOJ-OGR-00001456
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document