mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00020375.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "17",
    "document_number": "92",
    "date": "05/27/2021",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 21-58, Document 92, 05/27/2021, 3109708, Page17 of 24\nof confinement do not warrant temporary release.  Nothing in Maxwell's renewed motion alters that conclusion.\n32. \"As a general matter, this Court will adhere to its own decision at an earlier stage of the litigation.\"  United States v. Plugh, 648 F.3d 118, 123 (2d Cir. 2011). The \"law of the case doctrine is subject to limited exceptions made for compelling reasons,\" such as where there is \"an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.\" Id. at 123-24; see also United States v. Tenzer, 213 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir. 2000) (\"We have stated that we will not depart from this sound policy absent cogent or compelling reasons.\").  Maxwell has offered no persuasive reason, let alone a \"compelling\" reason, Plugh, 648 F.3d at 123, for this Court to reverse its prior decision.\n33. The only new events that Maxwell cites as justification for her request that this Court reverse itself is additional letter briefing before the District Court regarding MDC's nighttime security checks.  Nothing about that briefing or Judge Nathan's most recent written order suggests that Judge Nathan clearly erred when finding Maxwell poses a flight risk or abused her discretion when determining that temporary release is not warranted.\n17\nDOJ-OGR-00020375",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 21-58, Document 92, 05/27/2021, 3109708, Page17 of 24",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "of confinement do not warrant temporary release.  Nothing in Maxwell's renewed motion alters that conclusion.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "32. \"As a general matter, this Court will adhere to its own decision at an earlier stage of the litigation.\"  United States v. Plugh, 648 F.3d 118, 123 (2d Cir. 2011). The \"law of the case doctrine is subject to limited exceptions made for compelling reasons,\" such as where there is \"an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.\" Id. at 123-24; see also United States v. Tenzer, 213 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir. 2000) (\"We have stated that we will not depart from this sound policy absent cogent or compelling reasons.\").  Maxwell has offered no persuasive reason, let alone a \"compelling\" reason, Plugh, 648 F.3d at 123, for this Court to reverse its prior decision.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "33. The only new events that Maxwell cites as justification for her request that this Court reverse itself is additional letter briefing before the District Court regarding MDC's nighttime security checks.  Nothing about that briefing or Judge Nathan's most recent written order suggests that Judge Nathan clearly erred when finding Maxwell poses a flight risk or abused her discretion when determining that temporary release is not warranted.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020375",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States",
      "District Court",
      "MDC"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "05/27/2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 21-58",
      "Document 92",
      "3109708",
      "DOJ-OGR-00020375"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 17 of 24."
}