{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "22",
    "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, Page22 of 24\n\n38. The only question even arguably before this Court at this juncture is whether Judge Nathan committed clear error when detaining Maxwell as a flight risk or abused her discretion when denying Maxwell temporary release. Nothing in the renewed motion undermines Judge Nathan's conclusion that Maxwell poses a real risk of flight. Nor does the renewed motion explain how Judge Nathan's careful consideration of the MDC's nighttime security protocols and continued monitoring of Maxwell's ability to access her discovery and communicate with counsel transforms the denial of pretrial release into an abuse of discretion. Simply put, the renewed motion fails to present any \"compelling\" reason for this Court to reverse its prior decision in this case. Plugh, 648 F.3d at 123.\n\nto review her discovery. (See, e.g., Dkt. 235 at 7 n.4; Dkt. 196 at 1-2). Among other things, Maxwell has exclusive access to both a desktop and a laptop computer on which to review her discovery, thirteen hours per day, seven days per week. She is also able to review discovery with her attorneys during the 25 hours of legal video-teleconference calls she receives each week. (See Dkt. 196 at 1-2).\n22\nDOJ-OGR-00001462",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 21-770, Document 73, 05/27/2021, 3109708, Page22 of 24",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "38. The only question even arguably before this Court at this juncture is whether Judge Nathan committed clear error when detaining Maxwell as a flight risk or abused her discretion when denying Maxwell temporary release. Nothing in the renewed motion undermines Judge Nathan's conclusion that Maxwell poses a real risk of flight. Nor does the renewed motion explain how Judge Nathan's careful consideration of the MDC's nighttime security protocols and continued monitoring of Maxwell's ability to access her discovery and communicate with counsel transforms the denial of pretrial release into an abuse of discretion. Simply put, the renewed motion fails to present any \"compelling\" reason for this Court to reverse its prior decision in this case. Plugh, 648 F.3d at 123.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "to review her discovery. (See, e.g., Dkt. 235 at 7 n.4; Dkt. 196 at 1-2). Among other things, Maxwell has exclusive access to both a desktop and a laptop computer on which to review her discovery, thirteen hours per day, seven days per week. She is also able to review discovery with her attorneys during the 25 hours of legal video-teleconference calls she receives each week. (See Dkt. 196 at 1-2).",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "22",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001462",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Nathan",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "MDC"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "05/27/2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 21-770",
      "Document 73",
      "Dkt. 235",
      "Dkt. 196",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001462"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Maxwell, with discussions on pretrial release and access to discovery materials. The text is well-formatted and clear, with legal citations and references to specific documents."
}