mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002770.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "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 4 of 12\nperson as required and the safety of any other person and the community.\" 18 U.S.C. §\n3142(c)(1)(B). The Court may order that the defendant be held without bail only if, after\nconsidering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court concludes that \"no condition\nor combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and\nthe safety of any other person and the community.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).\nAfter a court has made an initial determination that no conditions of release can\nreasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant as required, the Bail Reform Act allows the\nCourt to reopen the bail hearing if \"information exists that was not known to the movant at the\ntime of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue\" of whether pretrial detention is\nwarranted. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). The Court is not required to do so if it determines that any new\ninformation would not have a material bearing on the issue. See United States v. Raniere, No.\n18-CR-2041 (NGG) (VMS), 2018 WL 6344202, at *2 n.7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2018) (noting that\n\"[a]s the court has already held one detention hearing, it need not hold another\"); United States v.\nHavens, 487 F. Supp. 2d 335, 339 (W.D.N.Y. 2007) (electing not to reopen a detention hearing\nbecause the new information would not have changed the court's decision to detain the defendant\nuntil trial). In addition, the Court may also revisit its own decision pursuant to its inherent\nauthority, even when the circumstances do not match § 3142(f)'s statutory text. See, e.g., United\nStates v. Rowe, No. 02-CR-756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003)\n(noting that \"a release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on\nreconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing.\"); United States v.\nPetrov, No. 15-CR-66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting the\n\"Court's inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court's previous bail decision\").\n4\nDOJ-OGR-00002770",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 169 Filed 03/22/21 Page 4 of 12",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.\" 18 U.S.C. §\n3142(c)(1)(B). The Court may order that the defendant be held without bail only if, after\nconsidering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court concludes that \"no condition\nor combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and\nthe safety of any other person and the community.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).\nAfter a court has made an initial determination that no conditions of release can\nreasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant as required, the Bail Reform Act allows the\nCourt to reopen the bail hearing if \"information exists that was not known to the movant at the\ntime of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue\" of whether pretrial detention is\nwarranted. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). The Court is not required to do so if it determines that any new\ninformation would not have a material bearing on the issue. See United States v. Raniere, No.\n18-CR-2041 (NGG) (VMS), 2018 WL 6344202, at *2 n.7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2018) (noting that\n\"[a]s the court has already held one detention hearing, it need not hold another\"); United States v.\nHavens, 487 F. Supp. 2d 335, 339 (W.D.N.Y. 2007) (electing not to reopen a detention hearing\nbecause the new information would not have changed the court's decision to detain the defendant\nuntil trial). In addition, the Court may also revisit its own decision pursuant to its inherent\nauthority, even when the circumstances do not match § 3142(f)'s statutory text. See, e.g., United\nStates v. Rowe, No. 02-CR-756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003)\n(noting that \"a release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on\nreconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing.\"); United States v.\nPetrov, No. 15-CR-66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting the\n\"Court's inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court's previous bail decision\").",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002770",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Bail Reform Act"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "E.D.N.Y.",
      "W.D.N.Y.",
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "03/22/21",
      "Dec. 5, 2018",
      "May 21, 2003",
      "Mar. 26, 2015"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 169",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1)",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)",
      "18-CR-2041 (NGG) (VMS)",
      "487 F. Supp. 2d 335",
      "02-CR-756 (LMM)",
      "15-CR-66 (LTS)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002770"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing bail and detention. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}