{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "Case 1:21-cr-00249-MV Document 3062 Filed 06/02/23 Page 4 of 616",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "that it was \"very concerned\" about the amount of time Mr. Robertson had been in custody up to that point, especially given that the already-minimal rehabilitative and mental health services in jail had been further reduced by the pandemic. Transcript of September 11, 2020 Status Conference at 43–44.1 The Court nevertheless found that it did not have any conditions available that could reasonably assure Mr. Robertson's appearance or the safety of the community given his failure to comply with conditions of release in the past. Id. at 44–45. The Court also noted that while it was concerned about Mr. Robertson's ability to meet with his attorneys to prepare for trial during the pandemic, it had been informed that the defense team would be able to meet in conference rooms in the federal courthouse in Albuquerque. Id. at 45.\n\nMr. Robertson now asks the Court to reconsider its earlier decision denying him pretrial release. Doc. 274. As grounds for reconsideration, he points to the additional unforeseen trial continuances following the September status conference as well as new placement options, including the grandmother of his children and La Pasada Halfway House. Id.; see also Doc. 284 at 2–3. The government opposes the requested reconsideration. Doc. 282.\n\nDISCUSSION\n\nI. Reconsideration is Proper on the Basis of New Evidence Previously Unavailable.\n\nAs an initial matter, Mr. Robertson has raised legitimate reasons for the Court to reconsider its earlier release decision. As the Court has previously explained, it is well-established in this Circuit that although the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not expressly authorize a motion for reconsideration, such motions are proper in criminal cases. See United States v. Christy, 739 F.3d 534, 539 (10th Cir. 2014). A district court thus may amend its interlocutory orders prior to entry of final judgment. See, e.g., Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.\n\n1 All references to the transcript are to the draft copy.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00001294",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "that it was \"very concerned\" about the amount of time Mr. Robertson had been in custody up to that point, especially given that the already-minimal rehabilitative and mental health services in jail had been further reduced by the pandemic. Transcript of September 11, 2020 Status Conference at 43–44.1 The Court nevertheless found that it did not have any conditions available that could reasonably assure Mr. Robertson's appearance or the safety of the community given his failure to comply with conditions of release in the past. Id. at 44–45. The Court also noted that while it was concerned about Mr. Robertson's ability to meet with his attorneys to prepare for trial during the pandemic, it had been informed that the defense team would be able to meet in conference rooms in the federal courthouse in Albuquerque. Id. at 45.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Mr. Robertson now asks the Court to reconsider its earlier decision denying him pretrial release. Doc. 274. As grounds for reconsideration, he points to the additional unforeseen trial continuances following the September status conference as well as new placement options, including the grandmother of his children and La Pasada Halfway House. Id.; see also Doc. 284 at 2–3. The government opposes the requested reconsideration. Doc. 282.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DISCUSSION",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. Reconsideration is Proper on the Basis of New Evidence Previously Unavailable.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As an initial matter, Mr. Robertson has raised legitimate reasons for the Court to reconsider its earlier release decision. As the Court has previously explained, it is well-established in this Circuit that although the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not expressly authorize a motion for reconsideration, such motions are proper in criminal cases. See United States v. Christy, 739 F.3d 534, 539 (10th Cir. 2014). A district court thus may amend its interlocutory orders prior to entry of final judgment. See, e.g., Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 All references to the transcript are to the draft copy.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001294",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Robertson",
      "Christy",
      "Van Skiver"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure",
      "10th Cir.",
      "government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Albuquerque",
      "La Pasada Halfway House"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "September 11, 2020",
      "2014"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:21-cr-00249-MV",
      "Doc. 274",
      "Doc. 284",
      "Doc. 282",
      "739 F.3d 534",
      "952 F.2d 1241",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001294"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Mr. Robertson. The text is mostly printed, with some citations and references to court documents. There are no visible stamps or handwritten text."
}