mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00001455.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "document_number": "73",
    "date": "05/27/2021",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 21-770, Document 73, 05/27/2021, 3109708, Page15 of 24\nabuse of discretion or clear error. See United States v. McCloud, 837 F. App'x 852, 853 n.3 (2d Cir. 2021).\n\nB. Discussion\n28. This Court has already affirmed Judge Nathan's bail determinations and denied Maxwell's application for pretrial release. The only changed circumstance since this Court rendered that decision—Judge Nathan's determination that the MDC's nighttime security protocols do not interfere with Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial—does nothing to alter the conclusion that Judge Nathan did not clearly err or abuse her discretion when denying Maxwell's prior bail applications.\n29. As an initial matter, it bears noting that Maxwell did not docket a new appeal from any order entered by Judge Nathan. Instead, she filed her \"renewed motion\" under the same docket as her initial appeal, thereby effectively asking the same panel of this Court to reconsider its earlier decision. To the extent this motion is construed as one for panel reconsideration, it is untimely under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(a)(1) and Local Rules 40.1 and 40.2.\n30. In addition, since this Court denied Maxwell's bail appeal, Maxwell has not filed a renewed motion for bail or temporary release in the District Court based on any alleged changed circumstances. As this Court has explained in\n15\nDOJ-OGR-00001455",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 21-770, Document 73, 05/27/2021, 3109708, Page15 of 24",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "abuse of discretion or clear error. See United States v. McCloud, 837 F. App'x 852, 853 n.3 (2d Cir. 2021).\n\nB. Discussion",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "28. This Court has already affirmed Judge Nathan's bail determinations and denied Maxwell's application for pretrial release. The only changed circumstance since this Court rendered that decision—Judge Nathan's determination that the MDC's nighttime security protocols do not interfere with Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial—does nothing to alter the conclusion that Judge Nathan did not clearly err or abuse her discretion when denying Maxwell's prior bail applications.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "29. As an initial matter, it bears noting that Maxwell did not docket a new appeal from any order entered by Judge Nathan. Instead, she filed her \"renewed motion\" under the same docket as her initial appeal, thereby effectively asking the same panel of this Court to reconsider its earlier decision. To the extent this motion is construed as one for panel reconsideration, it is untimely under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(a)(1) and Local Rules 40.1 and 40.2.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "30. In addition, since this Court denied Maxwell's bail appeal, Maxwell has not filed a renewed motion for bail or temporary release in the District Court based on any alleged changed circumstances. As this Court has explained in",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "15",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001455",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Judge Nathan",
      "McCloud"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States",
      "Court",
      "District Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "05/27/2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 21-770",
      "Document 73",
      "3109708",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001455"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document, specifically a page from a legal brief or opinion. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten annotations. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}