{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "document_number": "1:18-cr-00490-RMB-DCF",
    "date": "07/18/19",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). A Court does not need to find both bases are proven to order a defendant's detention. See id.; United States v. Blanco, 570 F. App'x 76, 78 (2d Cir. 2014). Dangerousness means that the defendant is a \"danger to the safety of any other person or the community.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3142. A finding of dangerousness must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Ferranti, 66 F.3d 540, 542 (2d Cir. 1995). \"Where there is a strong probability that a person will commit additional crimes if released, the need to protect the community becomes sufficiently compelling that detention is, on balance, appropriate.\" United States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 403 (2d Cir. 1985). \"[E]ven a single incident of witness tampering . . . [may be] sufficient to revoke bail.\" LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 134. To order detention based upon risk of flight, the Court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that \"that no conditions could reasonably assure the defendant's presence at trial.\" See, e.g., United States v. Jackson, 823 F.2d 4, 5 (2d Cir. 1987); 18 U.S.C. § 3142. \"[T]he constitutional limits on a detention period based on dangerousness to the community may be looser than the limits on a detention period based solely on risk of flight. In the former case, release risks injury to others, while in the latter case, release risks only the loss of a conviction.\" United States v. Millan, 4 F.3d 1038, 1048 (2d Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Orena, 986 F.2d 628, 631 (2d Cir. 1993)). A bail package that \"may reasonably assure the appearance of [the defendant] at trial will not [necessarily] assure the safety of the community.\" United States v. Rodriguez, 950 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1991). The Bail Reform Act sets forth the following four factors to be considered in the release/remand analysis: (1) the nature and circumstances of the crime(s) charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, including the person's character and financial resources; and (4) the seriousness of the danger posed by the",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). A Court does not need to find both bases are proven to order a defendant's detention. See id.; United States v. Blanco, 570 F. App'x 76, 78 (2d Cir. 2014). Dangerousness means that the defendant is a \"danger to the safety of any other person or the community.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3142. A finding of dangerousness must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Ferranti, 66 F.3d 540, 542 (2d Cir. 1995). \"Where there is a strong probability that a person will commit additional crimes if released, the need to protect the community becomes sufficiently compelling that detention is, on balance, appropriate.\" United States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 403 (2d Cir. 1985). \"[E]ven a single incident of witness tampering . . . [may be] sufficient to revoke bail.\" LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 134. To order detention based upon risk of flight, the Court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that \"that no conditions could reasonably assure the defendant's presence at trial.\" See, e.g., United States v. Jackson, 823 F.2d 4, 5 (2d Cir. 1987); 18 U.S.C. § 3142. \"[T]he constitutional limits on a detention period based on dangerousness to the community may be looser than the limits on a detention period based solely on risk of flight. In the former case, release risks injury to others, while in the latter case, release risks only the loss of a conviction.\" United States v. Millan, 4 F.3d 1038, 1048 (2d Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Orena, 986 F.2d 628, 631 (2d Cir. 1993)). A bail package that \"may reasonably assure the appearance of [the defendant] at trial will not [necessarily] assure the safety of the community.\" United States v. Rodriguez, 950 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1991). The Bail Reform Act sets forth the following four factors to be considered in the release/remand analysis: (1) the nature and circumstances of the crime(s) charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, including the person's character and financial resources; and (4) the seriousness of the danger posed by the",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000791",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/18/19"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:18-cr-00490-RMB-DCF",
      "DOJ-OGR-00000791"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the conditions for detention under the Bail Reform Act. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}