mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019373.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "document_number": "38",
    "date": "09/16/2020",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 38, 09/16/2020, 2932233, Page7 of 23\n\nthe Order. (Dist. Ct. Docket Entry 55). On September 10, 2020, Maxwell filed the instant motion to consolidate this appeal with the appeal currently pending in Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413. The Government is not a party to the appeal in Giuffre v. Maxwell, which concerns an order issued in a civil case unsealing materials that were previously filed under seal.\n\nARGUMENT\n\nI. THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION\n\nA. Applicable Law\n\n1. The Collateral Order Doctrine\n\n10. Title 28, United States Code, Section 1291 expressly limits the jurisdiction of Courts of Appeals to \"final decisions of the district courts.\" 28 U.S.C. § 1291. \"This final judgment rule requires that a party must ordinarily raise all claims of error in a single appeal following final judgment on the merits. In a criminal case[,] the rule prohibits appellate review until conviction and imposition of sentence.\" Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263 (1984) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); accord United States v. Aliotta, 199 F.3d 78, 81 (2d Cir. 1999). As the Supreme Court has \"long held,\" the \"policy of Congress embodied in this statute is inimical to piecemeal appellate review of trial court decisions which do not terminate the litigation, and . . . this policy is at its strongest in the field of criminal law.\" United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co.,\n7\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019373",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 38, 09/16/2020, 2932233, Page7 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the Order. (Dist. Ct. Docket Entry 55). On September 10, 2020, Maxwell filed the instant motion to consolidate this appeal with the appeal currently pending in Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413. The Government is not a party to the appeal in Giuffre v. Maxwell, which concerns an order issued in a civil case unsealing materials that were previously filed under seal.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ARGUMENT",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. Applicable Law",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. The Collateral Order Doctrine",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10. Title 28, United States Code, Section 1291 expressly limits the jurisdiction of Courts of Appeals to \"final decisions of the district courts.\" 28 U.S.C. § 1291. \"This final judgment rule requires that a party must ordinarily raise all claims of error in a single appeal following final judgment on the merits. In a criminal case[,] the rule prohibits appellate review until conviction and imposition of sentence.\" Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263 (1984) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); accord United States v. Aliotta, 199 F.3d 78, 81 (2d Cir. 1999). As the Supreme Court has \"long held,\" the \"policy of Congress embodied in this statute is inimical to piecemeal appellate review of trial court decisions which do not terminate the litigation, and . . . this policy is at its strongest in the field of criminal law.\" United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co.,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019373",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Supreme Court",
      "Courts of Appeals",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "September 10, 2020",
      "1984",
      "1999"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "38",
      "2932233",
      "20-2413",
      "28",
      "1291",
      "465",
      "259",
      "263",
      "199",
      "78",
      "81",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019373"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a legal case, with a formal tone and legal language. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}