{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "169",
    "date": "03/22/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 169 Filed 03/22/21 Page 6 of 12\n\nCourt's view has not changed. The Court again concludes that the Government has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant presents a risk of flight and that there are no set of conditions, including the Defendant's third set of proposed conditions, that are sufficient to reasonably assure her appearance. The presumption in favor of detention, the weight of the evidence, and the history and characteristics of the Defendant all continue to support that conclusion. The Defendant's proposed conditions do not alter the Court's determination.\n\nA. The Court's assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors has not changed\n\nTo begin with, the presumption in favor of detention continues to apply with equal force. See Dkt. No. 106 (“Dec. Op.”) at 7-8. And though the Court again concludes that the Defendant has met her burden of production, the presumption “remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court.” Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436 (quoting Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144). The Court is mindful “that Congress has found that these offenders pose special risks of flight, and that ‘a strong probability arises’ that no form of conditional release will be adequate to secure their appearance.” Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144 (citation omitted).\n\nThe Court's analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors also remains unchanged.\n\nBecause the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged include crimes involving a minor victim, the first 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factor continues to weigh strongly in favor of detention.\n\nAnd the Court remains of the opinion that the Defendant does not pose a danger to any person or to the community. The fourth § 3142(g) factor thus weighs against detention.\n\nWith respect to the second § 3142(g) factor, none of the Defendant's new arguments alter the Court's conclusion as to the weight of the evidence. The Defendant argues that the pre-trial motions “raise serious legal issues that could result in dismissal of charges, if not the entire indictment,” and she contends that “[t]hese motions cast substantial doubt on the alleged strength 6\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002772",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 169 Filed 03/22/21 Page 6 of 12",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Court's view has not changed. The Court again concludes that the Government has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant presents a risk of flight and that there are no set of conditions, including the Defendant's third set of proposed conditions, that are sufficient to reasonably assure her appearance. The presumption in favor of detention, the weight of the evidence, and the history and characteristics of the Defendant all continue to support that conclusion. The Defendant's proposed conditions do not alter the Court's determination.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. The Court's assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors has not changed",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To begin with, the presumption in favor of detention continues to apply with equal force. See Dkt. No. 106 (“Dec. Op.”) at 7-8. And though the Court again concludes that the Defendant has met her burden of production, the presumption “remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court.” Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436 (quoting Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144). The Court is mindful “that Congress has found that these offenders pose special risks of flight, and that ‘a strong probability arises’ that no form of conditional release will be adequate to secure their appearance.” Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144 (citation omitted).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court's analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors also remains unchanged.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Because the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged include crimes involving a minor victim, the first 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factor continues to weigh strongly in favor of detention.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "And the Court remains of the opinion that the Defendant does not pose a danger to any person or to the community. The fourth § 3142(g) factor thus weighs against detention.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "With respect to the second § 3142(g) factor, none of the Defendant's new arguments alter the Court's conclusion as to the weight of the evidence. The Defendant argues that the pre-trial motions “raise serious legal issues that could result in dismissal of charges, if not the entire indictment,” and she contends that “[t]hese motions cast substantial doubt on the alleged strength",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002772",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "03/22/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 169",
      "Dkt. No. 106",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002772"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 6 of 12."
}