Full Text
Case 1:21-cr-00033-AJN Document 265.1 Filed 03/03/21 Page 21 of 59 Page 2 bail in July 2020, the defendant filed a renewed motion for release in December 2020 in which the defendant proposed a “substantially larger bail package” and presented arguments that “either were made at the initial bail hearing or could have been made then.” (Dec. Op. at 1). In denying that second application, the Court found that the information provided in the Second Bail Motion “only solidifies the Court’s view that the Defendant plainly poses a risk of flight and that no combination of conditions can ensure her appearance.” (Id. at 1-2). On January 11, 2021, the defendant filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit appealing the Court’s December 2020 opinion denying the Second Bail Motion. (Dkt. No. 113). That appeal is pending; the defendant has not yet filed her brief in support of the appeal. On February 23, 2021, the defendant submitted the Third Bail Motion, in which she proposed two additional bail conditions to “supplement the . . . bail package she has already offered” in the Second Bail Motion (Mot. at 2): (1) renunciation of the defendant’s French and British citizenship; and (2) placement of a portion of her and her spouse’s assets in a new account to be overseen by an asset monitor. II. The Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction to Grant the Third Bail Motion Because of the Defendant’s Pending Bail Appeal The defendant asks this Court to “reconsider its earlier ruling and grant bail under the proposed conditions.” (Mot. at 4). More specifically, the defendant asks the Court to consider the exact same package previously considered and rejected in the December opinion, as now “supplement[ed]” by two additional conditions. (Id. at 2, 8). However, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the Motion by virtue of the defendant’s appeal of the Court’s prior ruling to the Second Circuit. “As a general matter, ‘the filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.’” United States v. Rodgers, 101 F.3d 247, 251 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). “The divestiture of jurisdiction rule . . . is a judicially crafted rule rooted in the interest of judicial economy, designed ‘to avoid confusion or waste of time resulting from having the same issues before two courts at the same time.’” Rodgers, 101 F.3d at 251 (quoting United States v. Salerno, 868 F.2d 524, 540 (2d Cir. 1989)); see also United States v. Ransom, 866 F.2d 574, 576 (2d Cir. 1989) (describing the Griggs rule as “promot[ing] the orderly conduct of business in both the trial and appellate courts”). In January 2021, the defendant filed an appeal from the Court’s December 28, 2020 Opinion and Order denying her Second Bail Motion. The defendant’s Third Bail Motion not only seeks reconsideration of the very issue presently on appeal but does so by proposing two additional bail conditions to “supplement” the bail package proposed in the defendant’s Second Bail Motion, (Mot. at 2, 8), a package which this Court considered and concluded could not “reasonably assure her appearance.” (Dec. Op. at 16). Accordingly, the defendant’s Third Bail Motion also concerns bail and is thus an “aspect[] of the case involved in the appeal.” Rodgers, 101 F.3d at 251. The DOJ-OGR-00001244