DOJ-OGR-00001455.jpg
597 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court brief (appellate)
File Size:
597 KB
Summary
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (likely a government opposition brief) from May 27, 2021, regarding case 21-770. It argues that there are no grounds to overturn Judge Nathan's denial of Ghislaine Maxwell's bail, noting that MDC security protocols do not interfere with her trial preparation. It also argues that Maxwell's 'renewed motion' is procedurally improper and untimely under appellate rules.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of bail determinations and pretrial release applications.
|
| Judge Nathan | District Court Judge |
Judge whose bail determinations and rulings on MDC security protocols are being reviewed.
|
| McCloud | Case Citation Subject |
Referenced in legal citation 'United States v. McCloud'.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
The court reviewing the case (implied by '2d Cir.' citation and 'This Court').
|
|
| MDC |
Metropolitan Detention Center; facility where Maxwell is held, specifically regarding nighttime security protocols.
|
|
| District Court |
Lower court where Judge Nathan presides.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated in footer stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Prior to 2021-05-27
Judge Nathan's bail determinations and denial of Maxwell's application for pretrial release.
District Court
Prior to 2021-05-27
Maxwell filed a 'renewed motion' under the same docket as her initial appeal.
Appellate Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Detention facility holding Maxwell.
|
Relationships (1)
Judge Nathan made determinations denying Maxwell's bail.
Key Quotes (3)
"The only changed circumstance since this Court rendered that decision... does nothing to alter the conclusion that Judge Nathan did not clearly err or abuse her discretion when denying Maxwell’s prior bail applications."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001455.jpg
Quote #1
"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."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001455.jpg
Quote #2
"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."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001455.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,385 characters)
Case 21-770, Document 73, 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-00001455
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document