7) 13 Statutes All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) 27 Other Authorities U.S. CONST. amend. V 18, 27 U.S. CONST. amend. VI 18, 27 Rules Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2) 13 FED. R. Evm. 401 28 FED. R. EVID. 402 28 FED. R. EVID. 403 28 FED. R. Evm. 404(b) 28 iv EFTA00074908 Case 20-2413, Docume

ocument 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, Page49 of 74 Certificate of Compliance with Rule 32(A) This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B). It contains 9,112 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(III). This brief complies with

9368 Certificate of Compliance with Rule 32(g) Counsel hereby certifies that this response brief complies with the type- volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 32(g) and it contains 670 words. s/ Adam Mueller Certificate of Service I certify that on September 23, 2020, I filed Ghislaine Maxwell's Resp

llate Procedure 27(d)(2). This petition complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 27 because it has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in Century Schoolbook 14-point font. /s/ David Oscar

priate that the motion be made initially in the district court." United States v. Hochevar, 214 F.3d 342, 344 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam); see Fed. R. App. P. 9(a) (providing for appeals from detention orders); cf. generally Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 6 (1951) (explaining, before passage of the Bail

llate Procedure 27(d)(2). This petition complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 27 because it has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in Century Schoolbook 14-point font. /s/ David Oscar

st continue to file documents in paper. Attorneys may request a hardship waiver from the court to continue to file paper documents. 1. MOTIONS: Ha. R. App. P. 9.300. Excessive motion practice is strongly discouraged. Any record material supporting a motion shall be contained in an appendix with the mot

14, 2016) 6, 8 United States v. Smith, 776 F.2d 1104 (3d Cir. 1985) 7 United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 7 Rules Fed. R. App. P. 29 1 L.R. 29.1(b) 1 EFTA00792265 Case 18-2868, Document 153-2, 03/19/2019, 2521600, Page5 of 13 INTRODUCTION AND AMICUS STATEMENT OF INTER

84 Act also amended 18 U.S.0 . 9S 3041, 3042, 3154, 3156, 3731, 3772, and 4 282; 28 U.S.C. § 636; Fed. R. Crim. P. 5, 15, 40, 46, and 54; a nd Fed. R. App. P. 9. II. Release or Detention Pending Trial A. Generally A person arrested for a federal off unnecessary delay before the nearest avai initial

mob, Ms. Maxwell is presumed innocent and is entitled to defend herself. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell moves this Court for her immediate release. Fed. R. App. P. 9; 18 U.S.C. §§3142 and 3145. * * * 3 EFTA00093048 Case 21-770, Document 17-1. 04/01/2021. 3068296. Page6 of 31 ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Whe

130.55 155 Pub. L. No. 101-647 24 Pub. L. No. 103-322 24 Pub. L. No. 108-21 25 Pub. L. No. 109-162 25 Pub. L. No. 109-248 25 Rules Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) 99 Fed. R. Civ. P 56 153 Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a) 157 Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 200 Fed. R. Crim. P. 21 221 Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f) 206

e defense on or about August 12, 2020. As a result, Maxwell could have sought review of Chief Judge McMahon's order in the Second Circuit. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Maxwell asks this Court to second-guess a coequal district court's decision to modify a protective order. Putting aside the question of

130.55 155 Pub. L. No. 101.647 24 Pub. L. No. 103-322 24 Pub. L. No. 108-21 25 Pub. L. No. 109-162 25 Pub. L. No. 109-248 25 Rules Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) 99 Fed. R. Civ. P 56 153 Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a) 157 Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 200 Fed. R. Crim. P. 21 221 Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(t) 206

oduced to the defense on or about August 12, 2020. As a result, Maxwell could have sought review ofr Nari ll order in the Second Circuit. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Maxwell asks this Court to second-guess a coequal district court's decision to modify a protective order. Putting aside the question of

130.55 155 Pub. L. No. 101-647 24 Pub. L. No. 103-322 24 Pub. L. No. 108-21 25 Pub. L. No. 109-162 25 Pub. L. No. 109-248 25 Rules Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) 99 Fed. R. Civ. P 56 153 Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a) 157 Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 200 Fed. R. Crim. P. 21 221 Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f) 206

e defense on or about August 12, 2020. As a result, Maxwell could have sought review of Chief Judge McMahon's order in the Second Circuit. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Maxwell asks this Court to second-guess a coequal district court's decision to modify a protective order. Putting aside the question of

130.55 155 Pub. L. No. 101-647 24 Pub. L. No. 103-322 24 Pub. L. No. 108-21 25 Pub. L. No. 109-162 25 Pub. L. No. 109-248 25 Rules Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) 99 Fed. R. Civ. P 56 153 Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a) 157 Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 200 Fed. R. Crim. P. 21 221 Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f) 206

e defense on or about August 12, 2020. As a result, Maxwell could have sought review of Chief Judge McMahon's order in the Second Circuit. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Maxwell asks this Court to second-guess a coequal district court's decision to modify a protective order. Putting aside the question of

130.55 156 Pub. L. No. 101-647 24 Pub. L. No. 103-322 24 Pub. L. No. 108-21 25 Pub. L. No. 109-162 25 Pub. L. No. 109-248 25 Rules Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) 81 Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f) 188 Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) 69 Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1) 150 Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d) 159 Fed. R. Crim. P. 1

were produced to the defense on or about August 12, 2020. As a result, Maxwell could have sought review of order in the Second Circuit. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Maxwell asks this Court to second-guess a coequal district court's decision to modify a protective order. Putting aside the question of