{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": null,
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "defendant presents a danger to the community,' and 'by the lesser standard of a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight.'\" English, 629 F.3d at 319 (quoting Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436); see also United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986) (\"The government retains the burden of persuasion [in a presumption case].\"). Even when \"a defendant has met his burden of production,\" however, \"the presumption favoring detention does not disappear entirely, but remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court.\" United States v. Mattis, 963 F.3d 285, 290 91 (2d Cir. 2020). After a court has made an initial determination that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant as required, the Court may reopen the bail hearing if \"information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue\" of whether pretrial detention is warranted. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). But the Court is not required to reopen the hearing or to conduct another hearing if it determines that any new information would not have a material bearing on the issue. See United States v. Raniere, No. 18-CR-2041 (NGG) (VMS), 2018 WL 6344202, at *2 n.7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2018) (noting that \"[a]s the court has already held one detention hearing, it need not hold another\" the standards set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2) are met); United States v. Havens, 487 F. Supp. 2d 335, 339 (W.D.N.Y. 2007) (electing not to reopen a detention hearing because the new information would not have changed the court's decision to detain the defendant until trial). III. Discussion The Defendant bases her renewed motion for bail on both 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) and the Court's inherent powers to review its own bail decisions. See Def. Mot. at 7 9. As already noted, § 3142(f) provides that a bail hearing \"may be reopened . . . at any time before trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "defendant presents a danger to the community,' and 'by the lesser standard of a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight.'\" English, 629 F.3d at 319 (quoting Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436); see also United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986) (\"The government retains the burden of persuasion [in a presumption case].\"). Even when \"a defendant has met his burden of production,\" however, \"the presumption favoring detention does not disappear entirely, but remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court.\" United States v. Mattis, 963 F.3d 285, 290 91 (2d Cir. 2020).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "After a court has made an initial determination that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant as required, the Court may reopen the bail hearing if \"information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue\" of whether pretrial detention is warranted. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). But the Court is not required to reopen the hearing or to conduct another hearing if it determines that any new information would not have a material bearing on the issue. See United States v. Raniere, No. 18-CR-2041 (NGG) (VMS), 2018 WL 6344202, at *2 n.7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2018) (noting that \"[a]s the court has already held one detention hearing, it need not hold another\" the standards set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2) are met); United States v. Havens, 487 F. Supp. 2d 335, 339 (W.D.N.Y. 2007) (electing not to reopen a detention hearing because the new information would not have changed the court's decision to detain the defendant until trial).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. Discussion",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Defendant bases her renewed motion for bail on both 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) and the Court's inherent powers to review its own bail decisions. See Def. Mot. at 7 9. As already noted, § 3142(f) provides that a bail hearing \"may be reopened . . . at any time before trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "E.D.N.Y.",
      "W.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "Dec. 5, 2018"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "18-CR-2041",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001213"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a bail hearing, with references to various legal statutes and case law. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is likely a page from a larger filing, as indicated by the page number '4' at the bottom."
}