{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "16",
    "document_number": "73",
    "date": "05/27/2021",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 21-770, Document 73, 05/27/2021, 3109708, Page16 of 24\n\nthe context of post-conviction bail proceedings, \"given the findings that must be made in order to warrant release, it is generally more appropriate that the motion be made initially in the district court.\"  United States v. Hochevar, 214 F.3d 342, 344 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam); see Fed. R. App. P. 9(a) (providing for appeals from detention orders); cf. generally Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 6 (1951) (explaining, before passage of the Bail Reform Act, that \"[t]he proper procedure for challenging bail as unlawfully fixed is by motion for reduction of bail and appeal to the Court of Appeals from an order denying such motion\"). The Order Maxwell annexes to her motion-an Order regarding security checks at the MDC (Mot. Ex. B)-is not a bail determination, and Maxwell has not taken an appeal from that Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 9(a) (requiring that a party appealing a detention order must file \"a copy of the district court's order . . . as soon as practicable after filing the notice of appeal\").\n\nNo bail determination is properly before this Court.\n\n31. In any event, Maxwell's \"renewed motion\" is substantively meritless. This Court has already held that Judge Nathan did not commit clear error in finding, three times, that the Government established by a preponderance of the evidence that Maxwell is a risk of flight and no bail conditions could reasonably assure her appearance in court.  This Court has also concluded that Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion or clearly err in determining that Maxwell's conditions\n\n16\nDOJ-OGR-00001456",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 21-770, Document 73, 05/27/2021, 3109708, Page16 of 24",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the context of post-conviction bail proceedings, \"given the findings that must be made in order to warrant release, it is generally more appropriate that the motion be made initially in the district court.\"  United States v. Hochevar, 214 F.3d 342, 344 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam); see Fed. R. App. P. 9(a) (providing for appeals from detention orders); cf. generally Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 6 (1951) (explaining, before passage of the Bail Reform Act, that \"[t]he proper procedure for challenging bail as unlawfully fixed is by motion for reduction of bail and appeal to the Court of Appeals from an order denying such motion\"). The Order Maxwell annexes to her motion-an Order regarding security checks at the MDC (Mot. Ex. B)-is not a bail determination, and Maxwell has not taken an appeal from that Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 9(a) (requiring that a party appealing a detention order must file \"a copy of the district court's order . . . as soon as practicable after filing the notice of appeal\").",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "No bail determination is properly before this Court.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "31. In any event, Maxwell's \"renewed motion\" is substantively meritless. This Court has already held that Judge Nathan did not commit clear error in finding, three times, that the Government established by a preponderance of the evidence that Maxwell is a risk of flight and no bail conditions could reasonably assure her appearance in court.  This Court has also concluded that Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion or clearly err in determining that Maxwell's conditions",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "16",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001456",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Hochevar",
      "Boyle",
      "Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States",
      "Court of Appeals",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "MDC"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "05/27/2021",
      "2000",
      "1951"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "21-770",
      "73",
      "3109708",
      "214 F.3d 342",
      "342 U.S. 1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001456"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a bail hearing. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 16 of 24."
}