{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "21",
    "document_number": "106",
    "date": "12/30/20",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 106 Filed 12/30/20 Page 21 of 22\n\nFinally, as the Court expressed at the initial bail hearing, it has deep concerns about the spread of COVID-19 at BOP facilities, including at the MDC. Indeed, in recent weeks, the incidence of COVID-19 among the inmate population where the Defendant is housed is truly alarming. See COVID-19: Coronavirus, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last visited Dec. 28, 2020) (noting that the MDC currently has 99 inmates and 11 staff members who have tested positive for COVID-19). It could be argued that in the face of this, only those defendants who pose a danger to the community ought to be detained pending trial. If that were the law and in light of the increasing positivity rate, the Court would not hesitate to reopen the detention hearing and release the Defendant on bail since the Government rests none of its arguments on dangerousness. But that is not the law. Moreover, as the Court found at the initial bail hearing, the Defendant has no underlying health conditions that put her at heightened risk of health impacts were she to contract COVID. The pandemic, including increasing positivity numbers in the MDC, is not a basis for release in this case where the Court finds that the Defendant poses a substantial and actual risk of flight and that no combination of conditions could reasonably assure her appearance.\n\nE. A hearing is unnecessary\n\nHaving carefully reviewed the parties' arguments, the Court determines that a hearing is unnecessary and that it can resolve the motion on the papers. The briefing from both sides comprehensively lays out the parties' respective arguments For the reasons stated above, none of the new information has a material bearing on the Court's determination that the Defendant poses a flight risk. Indeed, many of the reasons that the Court provided at the July 14, 2020 hearing continue to apply with equal, if not greater, force. The Court need not hold another\n\n21\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002253",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 106 Filed 12/30/20 Page 21 of 22",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, as the Court expressed at the initial bail hearing, it has deep concerns about the spread of COVID-19 at BOP facilities, including at the MDC. Indeed, in recent weeks, the incidence of COVID-19 among the inmate population where the Defendant is housed is truly alarming. See COVID-19: Coronavirus, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last visited Dec. 28, 2020) (noting that the MDC currently has 99 inmates and 11 staff members who have tested positive for COVID-19). It could be argued that in the face of this, only those defendants who pose a danger to the community ought to be detained pending trial. If that were the law and in light of the increasing positivity rate, the Court would not hesitate to reopen the detention hearing and release the Defendant on bail since the Government rests none of its arguments on dangerousness. But that is not the law. Moreover, as the Court found at the initial bail hearing, the Defendant has no underlying health conditions that put her at heightened risk of health impacts were she to contract COVID. The pandemic, including increasing positivity numbers in the MDC, is not a basis for release in this case where the Court finds that the Defendant poses a substantial and actual risk of flight and that no combination of conditions could reasonably assure her appearance.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "E. A hearing is unnecessary",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Having carefully reviewed the parties' arguments, the Court determines that a hearing is unnecessary and that it can resolve the motion on the papers. The briefing from both sides comprehensively lays out the parties' respective arguments For the reasons stated above, none of the new information has a material bearing on the Court's determination that the Defendant poses a flight risk. Indeed, many of the reasons that the Court provided at the July 14, 2020 hearing continue to apply with equal, if not greater, force. The Court need not hold another",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "21",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002253",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Defendant"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Fed. Bureau of Prisons",
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "MDC",
      "BOP facilities"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "Dec. 28, 2020",
      "July 14, 2020",
      "12/30/20"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 106",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002253"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the defendant's bail and the impact of COVID-19 on the decision. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}