mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00001245.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "122070000830",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "defendant cannot simultaneously pursue bail in both the Second Circuit and the district court. To allow her to seek relief in both venues runs counter to the principles of judicial economy underpinning the divestiture of jurisdiction upon the filing of a notice of appeal. See Rodgers, 101 F.3d at 251.1\n\nThe Court's lack of jurisdiction to grant the Third Bail Motion does not leave the defendant without a remedy. The defendant can withdraw her pending bail appeal to restore jurisdiction to this Court. Alternatively, the Court can follow the procedure set forth in Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that if the defendant makes a timely motion for relief \"that the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion; (2) deny the motion; or (3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue.\" However, the defendant should not be permitted to simultaneously pursue bail in both this Court and the Second Circuit.\n\nIII. The Court Should Not Reverse Its Prior Well-Reasoned and Thorough Bail Decisions\n\nEven if this Court had jurisdiction to grant the Third Bail Motion, the motion should be denied. This Court has already twice made the determination that the defendant poses a risk of flight. In particular, the Court has found, \"the charges, which carry a presumption of detention,\n\n1 While the Government has not identified a case addressing the precise issue with which the Court is confronted, several considerations support the Government's position that the Court does not presently have jurisdiction to grant the Third Bail Motion. In addition to the rule articulated by the Supreme Court in Griggs, in Ching v. United States, the Second Circuit found that while an appeal from the denial of a Section 2255 motion was pending, the district court could not rule on a motion to amend the Section 2255 motion. 298 F.3d 174, 180 n.5 (2d Cir. 2002) (\"The district court could not rule on any motion affecting an aspect of the case that was before [the Second Circuit], including a motion to amend the motion, while that appeal was pending.\") Here, too, while the defendant's appeal of the denial of the Second Bail Motion is pending, the Court should not grant the defendant's motion to reconsider that very same bail ruling. Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which governs release in a criminal case, also supports such a reading. Rule 9(b), which governs release after a judgment of conviction, provides that a \"party entitled to do so may obtain review of a district-court order regarding release after a judgment of conviction by filing a notice of appeal from that order in the district court, or by filing a motion in the court of appeals if the party has already filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction.\" In United States v. Hochevar, 214 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2000), the Second Circuit found that Rule 9(b) contemplates going to the district court first for a bail ruling after a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction is filed. Rule 9(a), which governs release before a judgment of conviction, does not say anything about going back to the district court for a new bail ruling after a notice of appeal from a prior bail ruling is filed. In addition, Rule 9(a)(2) provides that the court of appeals \"must promptly determine\" the pre-judgment bail appeal. Such promptness would not be necessary if defendants could go back to the district court with another bail motion while the bail appeal is pending.",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "defendant cannot simultaneously pursue bail in both the Second Circuit and the district court. To allow her to seek relief in both venues runs counter to the principles of judicial economy underpinning the divestiture of jurisdiction upon the filing of a notice of appeal. See Rodgers, 101 F.3d at 251.1",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court's lack of jurisdiction to grant the Third Bail Motion does not leave the defendant without a remedy. The defendant can withdraw her pending bail appeal to restore jurisdiction to this Court. Alternatively, the Court can follow the procedure set forth in Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that if the defendant makes a timely motion for relief \"that the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion; (2) deny the motion; or (3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue.\" However, the defendant should not be permitted to simultaneously pursue bail in both this Court and the Second Circuit.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. The Court Should Not Reverse Its Prior Well-Reasoned and Thorough Bail Decisions",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Even if this Court had jurisdiction to grant the Third Bail Motion, the motion should be denied. This Court has already twice made the determination that the defendant poses a risk of flight. In particular, the Court has found, \"the charges, which carry a presumption of detention,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 While the Government has not identified a case addressing the precise issue with which the Court is confronted, several considerations support the Government's position that the Court does not presently have jurisdiction to grant the Third Bail Motion. In addition to the rule articulated by the Supreme Court in Griggs, in Ching v. United States, the Second Circuit found that while an appeal from the denial of a Section 2255 motion was pending, the district court could not rule on a motion to amend the Section 2255 motion. 298 F.3d 174, 180 n.5 (2d Cir. 2002) (\"The district court could not rule on any motion affecting an aspect of the case that was before [the Second Circuit], including a motion to amend the motion, while that appeal was pending.\") Here, too, while the defendant's appeal of the denial of the Second Bail Motion is pending, the Court should not grant the defendant's motion to reconsider that very same bail ruling. Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which governs release in a criminal case, also supports such a reading. Rule 9(b), which governs release after a judgment of conviction, provides that a \"party entitled to do so may obtain review of a district-court order regarding release after a judgment of conviction by filing a notice of appeal from that order in the district court, or by filing a motion in the court of appeals if the party has already filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction.\" In United States v. Hochevar, 214 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2000), the Second Circuit found that Rule 9(b) contemplates going to the district court first for a bail ruling after a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction is filed. Rule 9(a), which governs release before a judgment of conviction, does not say anything about going back to the district court for a new bail ruling after a notice of appeal from a prior bail ruling is filed. In addition, Rule 9(a)(2) provides that the court of appeals \"must promptly determine\" the pre-judgment bail appeal. Such promptness would not be necessary if defendants could go back to the district court with another bail motion while the bail appeal is pending.",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "Supreme Court",
      "Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure",
      "Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "2000",
      "2002"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "122070000830",
      "101 F.3d at 251",
      "298 F.3d 174",
      "214 F.3d 342",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001245"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a bail motion. The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document includes citations to various court cases and rules of procedure."
}