{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "22 of 36",
    "document_number": "100",
    "date": "12/18/20",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "to authorities in the United States would not be binding in the United Kingdom, and the defendant could easily decide not to consent to extradition once found abroad.\n\nFurther, a judge in the United Kingdom must make an independent decision on extradition based on the circumstances at the time the defendant is before the court, including the passage of time, forum, and considerations of the individual's mental or physical condition. See, e.g., id. at §§ 82, 83A, & 91. Even if a final order of extradition has been entered by a court, the Secretary of State still has the discretion to deny extradition. See id. at § 93. The Government understands from OIA that extradition from the United Kingdom is frequently extensively litigated, uncertain, and subject to multiple levels of appeal. Moreover, even where the process is ultimately successful, it is lengthy and time-consuming.\n\nUltimately, although the defendant purports to be willing to waive her right to challenge being extradited to the United States, she simply cannot do so under the laws of France and the United Kingdom, and she would be free to fight extradition once in those countries. And, of course, the defendant could choose to flee to another jurisdiction altogether, including one with which the United States does not have an extradition treaty. The defendant's written waivers of extradition from France and the United Kingdom certainly provide no guarantee that the defendant will not flee to a third country from which, even if she can be located, extradition may be impossible. Courts have recognized that lack of an effective means of extradition can increase a defendant's flight risk, and have cited such facts as a relevant consideration in detaining defendants pending trial. See, e.g., United States v. Namer, 238 F.3d 425, 2000 WL 1872012, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2000); Cilins, 2013 WL 3802012 at *2; United States v. Abdullahu, 488 F. Supp. 2d 433, 443 (D.N.J. 2007) (“The inability to extradite defendant should he flee weighs in favor of detention.”). Beyond being impossible to guarantee, extradition is typically a lengthy,",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "to authorities in the United States would not be binding in the United Kingdom, and the defendant could easily decide not to consent to extradition once found abroad.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Further, a judge in the United Kingdom must make an independent decision on extradition based on the circumstances at the time the defendant is before the court, including the passage of time, forum, and considerations of the individual's mental or physical condition. See, e.g., id. at §§ 82, 83A, & 91. Even if a final order of extradition has been entered by a court, the Secretary of State still has the discretion to deny extradition. See id. at § 93. The Government understands from OIA that extradition from the United Kingdom is frequently extensively litigated, uncertain, and subject to multiple levels of appeal. Moreover, even where the process is ultimately successful, it is lengthy and time-consuming.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ultimately, although the defendant purports to be willing to waive her right to challenge being extradited to the United States, she simply cannot do so under the laws of France and the United Kingdom, and she would be free to fight extradition once in those countries. And, of course, the defendant could choose to flee to another jurisdiction altogether, including one with which the United States does not have an extradition treaty. The defendant's written waivers of extradition from France and the United Kingdom certainly provide no guarantee that the defendant will not flee to a third country from which, even if she can be located, extradition may be impossible. Courts have recognized that lack of an effective means of extradition can increase a defendant's flight risk, and have cited such facts as a relevant consideration in detaining defendants pending trial. See, e.g., United States v. Namer, 238 F.3d 425, 2000 WL 1872012, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2000); Cilins, 2013 WL 3802012 at *2; United States v. Abdullahu, 488 F. Supp. 2d 433, 443 (D.N.J. 2007) (“The inability to extradite defendant should he flee weighs in favor of detention.”). Beyond being impossible to guarantee, extradition is typically a lengthy,",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "OIA"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United States",
      "United Kingdom",
      "France"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "12/18/20",
      "Dec. 12, 2000",
      "2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 100",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002183"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing extradition laws and procedures. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is likely a page from a larger filing, as indicated by the page number '22 of 36'."
}