DOJ-OGR-00001337.jpg

Case 21-770, Document 40-1, 04/12/2021, 3075763, Page20 of 25 concerns about her foreign citizenship or substantial assets (Br. 24-25), but Judge Nathan thoroughly analyzed these assertions and, after multiple rounds of briefing regarding the efficacy of Maxwell’s proposed package, was not persuaded. (Ex. H at 11-14; Ex. L at 8-11). Maxwell attempts to compare herself to other high-profile defendants (Br. 25), but Judge Nathan rejected the comparison, noting “crucial factual differences” in several of these cases (Ex. D at 88) and making extensive findings about the particular facts and circumstances of this case that make detention appropriate. None of this was clear error. 2. The District Court Did Not Clearly Err or Abuse Its Discretion by Denying Temporary Release 37. Maxwell also argues that she should be temporarily released— though she specifies no end date—because she cannot effectively prepare her defense under the conditions of her confinement. (Br. 13-19). Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion or clearly err by concluding otherwise.° To the contrary, Judge Nathan has gone to significant lengths to ensure that Maxwell has adequate access to her counsel and opportunity to prepare her defense. ° As noted, this Court has not resolved which standard of review applies to such an application. The Government submits that the decision of whether temporary release is “necessary” is a mixed question of law and fact which, like the district court’s bail determination, should be reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Mattis, 963 F.3d 285, 291 (2d Cir. 2020). The Court need not resolve the matter here, however, as Maxwell’s claim fails under either standard of review. 20 DOJ-OGR-00001337