{ "document_metadata": { "page_number": "8", "document_number": "204", "date": "04/16/21", "document_type": "court document", "has_handwriting": false, "has_stamps": false }, "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 8 of 239\n\nHemphill v. United States,\n392 F.2d 45 (8th Cir. 1968)...................................................................................................................................... 268\nHerring v. United States,\n555 U.S. 135 (2009) ................................................................................................................................................ 123\nHowell v. Superintendent Rockview SCI,\n939 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................................................................... 302\nHuddleston v. United States,\n485 U.S. 681 (1988) ................................................................................................................................................ 254\nIn re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. (\"Enterprise\"),\n391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................................................. 36, 43, 44\nIn re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991,\n945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) ................................................................................................................................ 108, 113\nIn re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992,\n1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 1993) ........................................................................................................................................ 140, 145\nIn re Grand Jury Subpoena,\n826 F.2d 1166 (1987) .............................................................................................................................................. 136\nIn re Grand Jury Subpoena,\n836 F.2d 1468 (4th Cir. 1988) ................................................................................................................................ 149\nIn re Three Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum Dated Jan. 29, 1999,\n191 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................................................ 139\nIn Re Three Grand Jury Subpoenas Jan. 5, 1988,\n847 F.2d 1024 (2d Cir. 1988) ................................................................................................................................ 136\nIn re U.S.,\n834 F.2d 283 (2d Cir. 1987) ...................................................................................................................................... 284\nIn re Various Grand Jury Subpoenas,\n924 F. Supp. 2d 549 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), aff'd, 579 F. App'x 37 (2d Cir. 2014) .................................................... 140\nInt'l Equity Invs., Inc. v. Opportunity Equity Partners Ltd.,\nNo. 05 Civ. 2745 (JGK) (RLE), 2010 WL 779314 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2010) ............................................................ 111\nJohnson v. United States,\n520 U.S. 461 (1997) ................................................................................................................................................ 200\nKungys v. United States,\n485 U.S. 759 (1988) ................................................................................................................................................ 222\nLandgraf v. USI Film Products,\n511 U.S. 244 (1994) .............................................................................................................................................. 35, 36, 41, 42\nLeocal v. Ashcroft,\n543 U.S. 1 (2004) ...................................................................................................................................................... 56, 57\nMadanes v. Madanes,\n186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ............................................................................................................................ 141\nMartindell v. Int'l Tel. and Tel. Corp.,\n594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) ................................................................................................................................ passim\nMartinez v. McAleenan,\n385 F. Supp. 3d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) .................................................................................................................... 150, 151\nMichigan v. Tucker,\n417 U.S. 433 (1974) ................................................................................................................................................ 137\n\niii\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002942", "text_blocks": [ { "type": "printed", "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 8 of 239", "position": "header" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "Hemphill v. United States,\n392 F.2d 45 (8th Cir. 1968)...................................................................................................................................... 268\nHerring v. United States,\n555 U.S. 135 (2009) ................................................................................................................................................ 123\nHowell v. Superintendent Rockview SCI,\n939 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................................................................... 302\nHuddleston v. United States,\n485 U.S. 681 (1988) ................................................................................................................................................ 254\nIn re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. (\"Enterprise\"),\n391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................................................. 36, 43, 44\nIn re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991,\n945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) ................................................................................................................................ 108, 113\nIn re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992,\n1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 1993) ........................................................................................................................................ 140, 145\nIn re Grand Jury Subpoena,\n826 F.2d 1166 (1987) .............................................................................................................................................. 136\nIn re Grand Jury Subpoena,\n836 F.2d 1468 (4th Cir. 1988) ................................................................................................................................ 149\nIn re Three Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum Dated Jan. 29, 1999,\n191 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................................................ 139\nIn Re Three Grand Jury Subpoenas Jan. 5, 1988,\n847 F.2d 1024 (2d Cir. 1988) ................................................................................................................................ 136\nIn re U.S.,\n834 F.2d 283 (2d Cir. 1987) ...................................................................................................................................... 284\nIn re Various Grand Jury Subpoenas,\n924 F. Supp. 2d 549 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), aff'd, 579 F. App'x 37 (2d Cir. 2014) .................................................... 140\nInt'l Equity Invs., Inc. v. Opportunity Equity Partners Ltd.,\nNo. 05 Civ. 2745 (JGK) (RLE), 2010 WL 779314 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2010) ............................................................ 111\nJohnson v. United States,\n520 U.S. 461 (1997) ................................................................................................................................................ 200\nKungys v. United States,\n485 U.S. 759 (1988) ................................................................................................................................................ 222\nLandgraf v. USI Film Products,\n511 U.S. 244 (1994) .............................................................................................................................................. 35, 36, 41, 42\nLeocal v. Ashcroft,\n543 U.S. 1 (2004) ...................................................................................................................................................... 56, 57\nMadanes v. Madanes,\n186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ............................................................................................................................ 141\nMartindell v. Int'l Tel. and Tel. Corp.,\n594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) ................................................................................................................................ passim\nMartinez v. McAleenan,\n385 F. Supp. 3d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) .................................................................................................................... 150, 151\nMichigan v. Tucker,\n417 U.S. 433 (1974) ................................................................................................................................................ 137", "position": "main content" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "iii", "position": "footer" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002942", "position": "footer" } ], "entities": { "people": [ "Hemphill", "Herring", "Howell", "Huddleston", "Johnson", "Kungys", "Landgraf", "Leocal", "Madanes", "Martindell", "Martinez", "Tucker", "Ashcroft", "McAleenan" ], "organizations": [ "United States", "Rockview SCI", "Enterprise", "USI Film Products", "Int'l Tel. and Tel. Corp.", "Opportunity Equity Partners Ltd." ], "locations": [ "S.D.N.Y.", "2d Cir.", "8th Cir.", "4th Cir." ], "dates": [ "1968", "2009", "2019", "1988", "2004", "1991", "1993", "1987", "1999", "2013", "2014", "2010", "1997", "1994", "1979", "1974" ], "reference_numbers": [ "1:20-cr-00330-PAE", "Document 204", "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE", "No. 05 Civ. 2745 (JGK) (RLE)" ] }, "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a list of case references. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and legible." }