{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "139",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 139 of 239\n\n\"misstatements\" to Chief Judge McMahon and the extent of coordination between the USAO-SDNY and Boies Schiller prior to the issuance of the subpoena. (Def. Mot. 3 at 16). With respect to that alleged \"misconduct,\" the defendant appears to makes two general accusations: first, that in 2016 Boies Schiller encouraged the USAO-SDNY to investigate the defendant for perjury, and second, that the Government's statement to Chief Judge McMahon as to whether she was facing a \"Chemical Bank kind of situation\" was false. Neither is correct, for the reasons described above. Because the defendant has proffered no reliable evidence to support any of the accusations contained in her motion papers, and because the Government has responded to those accusations with AUSA-1's contemporaneous notes of the February 29, 2016 meeting and notes from an interview of AUSA-1 conducted by the USAO-SDNY and the FBI (see Exs. 4 & 5), as well as relevant AUSA-1 emails (Exs. 6 & 7), such a hearing is not warranted.\n\na. Applicable Law\n\n\"[E]videntiary hearings should not be set as a matter of course, but only when the petition alleges facts which if proved would require the grant of relief.\" Grant v. United States, 282 F.2d 165, 170 (2d Cir. 1960). \"In order to make the requisite showing in sufficient detail, the defendant must submit an affidavit by someone with personal knowledge that disputed facts exist.\" United States v. Noble, No. 07 Cr. 284 (RJS), 2008 WL 140966, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2008). \"In the absence of such an affidavit, or when the allegations contained in such an affidavit are general and conclusory, an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary.\" United States v. Dewar, 489 F. Supp. 2d 351, 359 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). A district court may decide the motion without a hearing if the moving papers do not create a genuine issue as to any material fact. United States v. Caming, 968 F.2d 232, 236 (2d Cir. 1992), abrogated on other grounds by Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994. Moreover, it is well settled that a material issue of fact sufficient to justify an evidentiary 112\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003073",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 139 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"misstatements\" to Chief Judge McMahon and the extent of coordination between the USAO-SDNY and Boies Schiller prior to the issuance of the subpoena. (Def. Mot. 3 at 16). With respect to that alleged \"misconduct,\" the defendant appears to makes two general accusations: first, that in 2016 Boies Schiller encouraged the USAO-SDNY to investigate the defendant for perjury, and second, that the Government's statement to Chief Judge McMahon as to whether she was facing a \"Chemical Bank kind of situation\" was false. Neither is correct, for the reasons described above. Because the defendant has proffered no reliable evidence to support any of the accusations contained in her motion papers, and because the Government has responded to those accusations with AUSA-1's contemporaneous notes of the February 29, 2016 meeting and notes from an interview of AUSA-1 conducted by the USAO-SDNY and the FBI (see Exs. 4 & 5), as well as relevant AUSA-1 emails (Exs. 6 & 7), such a hearing is not warranted.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "a. Applicable Law",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"[E]videntiary hearings should not be set as a matter of course, but only when the petition alleges facts which if proved would require the grant of relief.\" Grant v. United States, 282 F.2d 165, 170 (2d Cir. 1960). \"In order to make the requisite showing in sufficient detail, the defendant must submit an affidavit by someone with personal knowledge that disputed facts exist.\" United States v. Noble, No. 07 Cr. 284 (RJS), 2008 WL 140966, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2008). \"In the absence of such an affidavit, or when the allegations contained in such an affidavit are general and conclusory, an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary.\" United States v. Dewar, 489 F. Supp. 2d 351, 359 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). A district court may decide the motion without a hearing if the moving papers do not create a genuine issue as to any material fact. United States v. Caming, 968 F.2d 232, 236 (2d Cir. 1992), abrogated on other grounds by Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994. Moreover, it is well settled that a material issue of fact sufficient to justify an evidentiary 112",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003073",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "McMahon",
      "AUSA-1"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO-SDNY",
      "Boies Schiller",
      "FBI",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "February 29, 2016",
      "Jan. 11, 2008"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "No. 07 Cr. 284 (RJS)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003073"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}