DOJ-OGR-00020373.jpg
598 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal court document (appellate filing/opinion)
File Size:
598 KB
Summary
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-58) discusses the court's affirmation of Judge Nathan's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell bail. The text argues that MDC's nighttime security protocols do not interfere with Maxwell's trial preparation and notes procedural errors in Maxwell's filing of a 'renewed motion' rather than a new appeal or proper motion in District Court. It cites Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure regarding the untimeliness of the motion.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of bail hearings; applying for pretrial release; currently detained at MDC.
|
| Judge Nathan | District Court Judge |
Made the lower court determinations denying Maxwell's bail; ruled on MDC security protocols.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MDC |
Metropolitan Detention Center; facility where Maxwell is detained; mentioned regarding nighttime security protocols.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; the court referenced in the case citation and likely the court...
|
|
| District Court |
The lower court where Judge Nathan presides and where motions must be filed.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (implied by footer stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Prior to 2021-05-27
Relationships (1)
Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's bail applications.
Key Quotes (4)
"Judge Nathan did not clearly err or abuse her discretion when denying Maxwell’s prior bail applications."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020373.jpg
Quote #1
"The only changed circumstance... does nothing to alter the conclusion..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020373.jpg
Quote #2
"Maxwell did not docket a new appeal from any order entered by Judge Nathan."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020373.jpg
Quote #3
"To the extent this motion is construed as one for panel reconsideration, it is untimely under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(a)(1)..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020373.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,384 characters)
Case 21-58, Document 92, 05/27/2021, 3109708, Page15 of 24
abuse of discretion or clear error. See United States v. McCloud, 837 F. App’x 852,
853 n.3 (2d Cir. 2021).
853 n.3 (2d Cir. 2021).
B. Discussion
28. This Court has already affirmed Judge Nathan’s bail
determinations and denied Maxwell’s application for pretrial release. The only
changed circumstance since this Court rendered that decision—Judge Nathan’s
determination that the MDC’s nighttime security protocols do not interfere with
Maxwell’s ability to prepare for trial—does nothing to alter the conclusion that
Judge Nathan did not clearly err or abuse her discretion when denying Maxwell’s
prior bail applications.
determinations and denied Maxwell’s application for pretrial release. The only
changed circumstance since this Court rendered that decision—Judge Nathan’s
determination that the MDC’s nighttime security protocols do not interfere with
Maxwell’s ability to prepare for trial—does nothing to alter the conclusion that
Judge Nathan did not clearly err or abuse her discretion when denying Maxwell’s
prior bail applications.
29. As an initial matter, it bears noting that Maxwell did not docket
a new appeal from any order entered by Judge Nathan. Instead, she filed her
“renewed motion” under the same docket as her initial appeal, thereby effectively
asking the same panel of this Court to reconsider its earlier decision. To the extent
this motion is construed as one for panel reconsideration, it is untimely under Federal
Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(a)(1) and Local Rules 40.1 and 40.2.
a new appeal from any order entered by Judge Nathan. Instead, she filed her
“renewed motion” under the same docket as her initial appeal, thereby effectively
asking the same panel of this Court to reconsider its earlier decision. To the extent
this motion is construed as one for panel reconsideration, it is untimely under Federal
Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(a)(1) and Local Rules 40.1 and 40.2.
30. In addition, since this Court denied Maxwell’s bail appeal,
Maxwell has not filed a renewed motion for bail or temporary release in the District
Court based on any alleged changed circumstances. As this Court has explained in
Maxwell has not filed a renewed motion for bail or temporary release in the District
Court based on any alleged changed circumstances. As this Court has explained in
15
DOJ-OGR-00020373
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document