{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "13",
    "document_number": "Case 1:19-cr-00290-RMB Document 82 Filed 07/18/19 Page 13 of 33",
    "date": "July 8, 2019",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "*10 (D.D.C. May 22, 2019). The presumption of remand \"reflects Congress's substantive judgment that particular classes of offenders should ordinarily be detained prior to trial.\" United States v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 945 (6th Cir. 2010). Other serious offenses that are accompanied by the presumption of remand are: Kidnapping (18 U.S.C. § 1201); Aggravated Sexual Abuse (18 U.S.C. § 2241); Sexual Abuse (18 U.S.C. § 2242); Offenses Resulting in Death (18 U.S.C. § 2245); Sexual Exploitation of Children (18 U.S.C. § 2251); Selling or Buying of Children (18 U.S.C. § 2251); Production of Sexually Explicit Depictions of a Minor for importation into the United States (18 U.S.C. § 2260); Coercion and Enticement (18 U.S.C. § 2422); Transport of Minors (18 U.S.C. § 2423); Use of Interstate Facilities to Transmit Information About a Minor (18 U.S.C. § 2425). 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E). The presumption of remand does not disappear even when rebutted. Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144. If the defendant comes forward with evidence that he will not endanger the community or flee the jurisdiction, the presumption \"is not erased.\" See United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986). \"Rather, the presumption remains in the case as an evidentiary finding militating against release, to be weighted along with other evidence.\" United States v. Hir, 517 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144 (\"The concern underlying the presumption applies to the general class of defendants charged with one of the specified offenses—not merely to defendants who fail to produce rebuttal evidence. Were the presumption . . . to vanish upon any showing . . . , courts would be giving too little deference to Congress' findings regarding this class) (emphasis in original). The U.S. Pretrial Services Department Recommends To The Court That Mr. Epstein Continue to Be Remanded The Pretrial Services report, dated July 8, 2019, concludes, following Pretrial Services' interview of Mr. Epstein, that \"[t]here is no condition or combination of conditions that [can]",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "*10 (D.D.C. May 22, 2019). The presumption of remand \"reflects Congress's substantive judgment that particular classes of offenders should ordinarily be detained prior to trial.\" United States v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 945 (6th Cir. 2010). Other serious offenses that are accompanied by the presumption of remand are: Kidnapping (18 U.S.C. § 1201); Aggravated Sexual Abuse (18 U.S.C. § 2241); Sexual Abuse (18 U.S.C. § 2242); Offenses Resulting in Death (18 U.S.C. § 2245); Sexual Exploitation of Children (18 U.S.C. § 2251); Selling or Buying of Children (18 U.S.C. § 2251); Production of Sexually Explicit Depictions of a Minor for importation into the United States (18 U.S.C. § 2260); Coercion and Enticement (18 U.S.C. § 2422); Transport of Minors (18 U.S.C. § 2423); Use of Interstate Facilities to Transmit Information About a Minor (18 U.S.C. § 2425). 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The presumption of remand does not disappear even when rebutted. Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144. If the defendant comes forward with evidence that he will not endanger the community or flee the jurisdiction, the presumption \"is not erased.\" See United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986). \"Rather, the presumption remains in the case as an evidentiary finding militating against release, to be weighted along with other evidence.\" United States v. Hir, 517 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144 (\"The concern underlying the presumption applies to the general class of defendants charged with one of the specified offenses—not merely to defendants who fail to produce rebuttal evidence. Were the presumption . . . to vanish upon any showing . . . , courts would be giving too little deference to Congress' findings regarding this class) (emphasis in original).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The U.S. Pretrial Services Department Recommends To The Court That Mr. Epstein Continue to Be Remanded The Pretrial Services report, dated July 8, 2019, concludes, following Pretrial Services' interview of Mr. Epstein, that \"[t]here is no condition or combination of conditions that [can]",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Pretrial Services Department",
      "Congress",
      "Pretrial Services"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "May 22, 2019",
      "July 8, 2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:19-cr-00290-RMB",
      "Document 82",
      "18 U.S.C. § 1201",
      "18 U.S.C. § 2241",
      "18 U.S.C. § 2242",
      "18 U.S.C. § 2245",
      "18 U.S.C. § 2251",
      "18 U.S.C. § 2260",
      "18 U.S.C. § 2422",
      "18 U.S.C. § 2423",
      "18 U.S.C. § 2425",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00000796"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Mr. Epstein, with references to various legal statutes and court decisions. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is page 13 of 33."
}