{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "16",
    "document_number": "40-1",
    "date": "04/12/2021",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 21-770, Document 40-1, 04/12/2021, 3075763, Page16 of 25\n\nCir. 2001). Even where a defendant produces sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of detention, the presumption does not disappear; instead, it becomes a factor to be weighed and considered in deciding whether release is warranted. Id.\n\n30. Where the Government seeks detention based on flight risk, the court must consider: (1) \"the nature and circumstances of the offense charged\"; (2) \"the weight of the evidence against the person\"; and (3) the \"history and characteristics of the person.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).\n\n31. This Court generally applies \"deferential review to a district court's order of detention.\" United States v. Watkins, 940 F.3d 152, 158 (2d Cir. 2019). It reviews for clear error the district court's findings regarding risk of flight and whether the proposed bail package would reasonably assure the defendant's appearance in court, see United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011); United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 196 (2d Cir. 1987), and will reverse only if \"on the entire evidence,\" it is \"left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,\" Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75.\n\n32. Once a defendant has been ordered detained, a judicial officer may \"permit the temporary release of the person, in the custody of a United States marshal or another appropriate person, to the extent that the judicial officer\n\n16\nDOJ-OGR-00001333",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 21-770, Document 40-1, 04/12/2021, 3075763, Page16 of 25",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Cir. 2001). Even where a defendant produces sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of detention, the presumption does not disappear; instead, it becomes a factor to be weighed and considered in deciding whether release is warranted. Id.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "30. Where the Government seeks detention based on flight risk, the court must consider: (1) \"the nature and circumstances of the offense charged\"; (2) \"the weight of the evidence against the person\"; and (3) the \"history and characteristics of the person.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "31. This Court generally applies \"deferential review to a district court's order of detention.\" United States v. Watkins, 940 F.3d 152, 158 (2d Cir. 2019). It reviews for clear error the district court's findings regarding risk of flight and whether the proposed bail package would reasonably assure the defendant's appearance in court, see United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011); United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 196 (2d Cir. 1987), and will reverse only if \"on the entire evidence,\" it is \"left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,\" Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "32. Once a defendant has been ordered detained, a judicial officer may \"permit the temporary release of the person, in the custody of a United States marshal or another appropriate person, to the extent that the judicial officer",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "16",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001333",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/12/2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "21-770",
      "40-1",
      "3075763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001333"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document, likely a legal brief or memorandum, discussing the detention of a defendant. The text is printed and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps. The document is page 16 of 25."
}