{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "18 of 25",
    "document_number": "40-1",
    "date": "04/12/2021",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 21-770, Document 40-1, 04/12/2021, 3075763, Page18 of 25\n\ninternational ties, multiple foreign citizenships, familial and personal connections abroad, ownership of at least one foreign property of significant value, lack of candor about her finances, and “extraordinary capacity to evade detection.” (Ex. D at 79-91; Ex. H at 7-20; Ex. L at 6-11). Maxwell does not come close to identifying clear error.\n\n34. Maxwell principally argues that Judge Nathan placed undue reliance on Government proffers in assessing the weight of the evidence. (Br. 19-21). Not so. “It is well established in this circuit that proffers are permissible both in the bail determination and bail revocation contexts.” United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000). “[B]ail hearings are typically informal affairs, not substitutes for trial or even for discovery. Often the opposing parties simply describe to the judicial officer the nature of their evidence; they do not actually produce it.” Id.; see also United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1145 (2d Cir. 1986) (“a detention hearing is not to serve as a mini-trial ... or as a discovery tool for the defendant”). This Court has thus repeatedly upheld the Government’s ability to proceed by proffer in bail proceedings. See, e.g., United States v. Cirillo, 149 F. App’x 40, 42-43 (2d Cir. 2005); United States v. Abuhamra, 389 F.3d 309, 321 n.7 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Vondette, 5 F. App’x 73, 76 (2d Cir. 2001); Martir, 782 F.2d at 1145.\n\n18\nDOJ-OGR-00001335",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 21-770, Document 40-1, 04/12/2021, 3075763, Page18 of 25",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "international ties, multiple foreign citizenships, familial and personal connections abroad, ownership of at least one foreign property of significant value, lack of candor about her finances, and “extraordinary capacity to evade detection.” (Ex. D at 79-91; Ex. H at 7-20; Ex. L at 6-11). Maxwell does not come close to identifying clear error.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "34. Maxwell principally argues that Judge Nathan placed undue reliance on Government proffers in assessing the weight of the evidence. (Br. 19-21). Not so. “It is well established in this circuit that proffers are permissible both in the bail determination and bail revocation contexts.” United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000). “[B]ail hearings are typically informal affairs, not substitutes for trial or even for discovery. Often the opposing parties simply describe to the judicial officer the nature of their evidence; they do not actually produce it.” Id.; see also United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1145 (2d Cir. 1986) (“a detention hearing is not to serve as a mini-trial ... or as a discovery tool for the defendant”). This Court has thus repeatedly upheld the Government’s ability to proceed by proffer in bail proceedings. See, e.g., United States v. Cirillo, 149 F. App’x 40, 42-43 (2d Cir. 2005); United States v. Abuhamra, 389 F.3d 309, 321 n.7 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Vondette, 5 F. App’x 73, 76 (2d Cir. 2001); Martir, 782 F.2d at 1145.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001335",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Nathan",
      "LaFontaine",
      "Martir",
      "Cirillo",
      "Abuhamra",
      "Vondette"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/12/2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 21-770",
      "Document 40-1",
      "3075763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001335"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Maxwell, with references to various legal precedents and citations. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}