{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "10",
    "date": "07/07/20",
    "document_type": "Court Order",
    "has_handwriting": true,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 10 Filed 07/07/20 Page 3 of 4\n\nemail within 24 hours in advance of the proceeding if any alleged victim wishes to be heard on the question of detention pending trial.\n\nFinally, the time between the Defendant's arrest and July 6, 2020 is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act due to the delay involved in transferring the Defendant from another district. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). And the Court further excludes time under the Speedy Trial Act from today through July 14, 2020. Due to the logistical issues involved in conducting a remote proceeding, the Court finds \"that the ends of justice served by [this exclusion] outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The exclusion is also supported by the need for the parties to discuss a potential protective order, which will facilitate the timely production of discovery in a manner protective of the rights of third parties. See Dkt. No. 5.\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: July 7, 2020 New York, New York\n\nALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge\n\nDOJ-OGR-00001542",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 10 Filed 07/07/20 Page 3 of 4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "email within 24 hours in advance of the proceeding if any alleged victim wishes to be heard on the question of detention pending trial.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, the time between the Defendant's arrest and July 6, 2020 is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act due to the delay involved in transferring the Defendant from another district. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). And the Court further excludes time under the Speedy Trial Act from today through July 14, 2020. Due to the logistical issues involved in conducting a remote proceeding, the Court finds \"that the ends of justice served by [this exclusion] outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The exclusion is also supported by the need for the parties to discuss a potential protective order, which will facilitate the timely production of discovery in a manner protective of the rights of third parties. See Dkt. No. 5.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SO ORDERED.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dated: July 7, 2020 New York, New York",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Alison J. Nathan",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001542",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States District Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "July 6, 2020",
      "July 7, 2020",
      "July 14, 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 10",
      "Dkt. No. 5",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001542"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court order with a signature from the judge. The text is mostly printed, with the judge's signature being handwritten."
}