{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "16",
    "document_number": "20-cr-0080",
    "date": "2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "applications in view of the applicable factors under the Bail Reform Act. This Court should reach the same conclusion based on the extraordinary risk of flight described in detail above.\n\nThe defendant's argument that bail is required for her to prepare her defense is equally unpersuasive. Judges in this district have repeatedly held that the current restrictions on inmate access to counsel do not warrant releasing defendants who should otherwise be detained under the Bail Reform Act. See United States v. Tolentino, 20 Cr. 007 (DLC), 2020 WL 1862670, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2020); United States v. Adamu, 18 Cr. 601 (PGG), 2020 WL 1821717, at *6 (Apr. 10, 2020); United States v. Brito, 20 Cr. 63 (PGG), 2020 WL 2521458, at *5-6 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2020); United States v. Ellison, 18 Cr. 834 (PAE), 2020 WL 1989301, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27), United States v. Melamed, No. 19 Cr. 443 (LAK), 2020 WL 1644205, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2020); United States v. Pena, No. 18 Cr. 640 (RA), 2020 WL 1674007, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2020). Just last week, a district judge in the Eastern District of New York denied bail to a defendant who argued that restricted access to his counsel at the MDC required his release, while noting the volume of decisions reaching the same conclusion. United States v. Shipp, No. 19 Cr. 299 (NGG), 2020 WL 3642856, *3-4 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2020) (collecting cases).\n\nThis Court's decision in Stephens does not compel a different result here. In that case, this Court concluded that bail was necessary in order to permit the defendant to prepare for a significant hearing, which was scheduled for six days later. United States v. Stephens, No. 15 Cr. 95 (AJN), 2020 WL 1295155, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) (finding that the limitations on the defendant's access to counsel \"impacts the Defendant's ability to prepare his defenses to the alleged violation of supervised release in advance of the merits hearing scheduled for March 25, 2020.\") By contrast, no evidentiary hearings have been requested, much less scheduled, in this case, and a trial date has not yet been set. See United States v. Gonzalez, No. 19 Cr. 906 (JMF), 2020 WL 1911209,",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "applications in view of the applicable factors under the Bail Reform Act. This Court should reach the same conclusion based on the extraordinary risk of flight described in detail above.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant's argument that bail is required for her to prepare her defense is equally unpersuasive. Judges in this district have repeatedly held that the current restrictions on inmate access to counsel do not warrant releasing defendants who should otherwise be detained under the Bail Reform Act. See United States v. Tolentino, 20 Cr. 007 (DLC), 2020 WL 1862670, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2020); United States v. Adamu, 18 Cr. 601 (PGG), 2020 WL 1821717, at *6 (Apr. 10, 2020); United States v. Brito, 20 Cr. 63 (PGG), 2020 WL 2521458, at *5-6 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2020); United States v. Ellison, 18 Cr. 834 (PAE), 2020 WL 1989301, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27), United States v. Melamed, No. 19 Cr. 443 (LAK), 2020 WL 1644205, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2020); United States v. Pena, No. 18 Cr. 640 (RA), 2020 WL 1674007, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2020). Just last week, a district judge in the Eastern District of New York denied bail to a defendant who argued that restricted access to his counsel at the MDC required his release, while noting the volume of decisions reaching the same conclusion. United States v. Shipp, No. 19 Cr. 299 (NGG), 2020 WL 3642856, *3-4 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2020) (collecting cases).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This Court's decision in Stephens does not compel a different result here. In that case, this Court concluded that bail was necessary in order to permit the defendant to prepare for a significant hearing, which was scheduled for six days later. United States v. Stephens, No. 15 Cr. 95 (AJN), 2020 WL 1295155, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) (finding that the limitations on the defendant's access to counsel \"impacts the Defendant's ability to prepare his defenses to the alleged violation of supervised release in advance of the merits hearing scheduled for March 25, 2020.\") By contrast, no evidentiary hearings have been requested, much less scheduled, in this case, and a trial date has not yet been set. See United States v. Gonzalez, No. 19 Cr. 906 (JMF), 2020 WL 1911209,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "16",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001001",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Bail Reform Act",
      "MDC"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "E.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "Apr. 14, 2020",
      "Apr. 10, 2020",
      "May 17, 2020",
      "Apr. 27, 2020",
      "Apr. 2, 2020",
      "Apr. 6, 2020",
      "July 6, 2020",
      "Mar. 19, 2020",
      "March 25, 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-cr-0080",
      "20 Cr. 007",
      "18 Cr. 601",
      "20 Cr. 63",
      "18 Cr. 834",
      "19 Cr. 443",
      "18 Cr. 640",
      "19 Cr. 299",
      "15 Cr. 95",
      "19 Cr. 906"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the defendant's bail application and the impact of COVID-19 on the defendant's access to counsel. The text is well-formatted and easy to read, with no visible redactions or damage."
}