Honorable Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Heidi Hong Piao, 15-cr-706 (VSB) Dear Judge Broderick: This law firm represents Heidi Hong Piao in the above-referenced matter.

We respectfully request that this Court enter an order releasing the remaining $51,500 of cash bond.

On March 5, 2021, this Court sentenced Ms. Piao to time served plus a term of supervised release.

Ms. Piao commits to use 50% of that amount ($25,750) to make immediate payment to the Bureau of Fiscal Services in furtherance of satisfying the agreed upon civil FBAR penalty.

The other 50% ($25,750) will be returned to Ms. Piao’s sister, Grace Paio, who had posted the entirety of the cash bond at the onset of this case.

... ability to pay at that time; or F E Special instructions regarding the payment of criminal monetary penalties: IRS confirmed that Defendant does not owe restitution, and that any interest owed is either de minimis or nonexistent.

The Government’s motion for reconsideration, (Doc. 991), of the Court’s decision of March 15, 2021, (Doc. 989), granting compassionate release in light of the COVID-19 pandemic is DENIED for the case-specific reasons set forth at the conference held on March 17, 2021, including that Defendant was previously informed that his motions for compassionate release and reconsideration were already granted.

The parties had previously agreed that the stay should be vacated on the business day following Defendant receiving his second shot of the Moderna vaccine or on March 29, 2021, whichever date is earlier.

On March 23, 2021, defense counsel informed the Government and me 3/23/2021 that Defendant had received his second dose of the Moderna vaccine earlier that day.

As such, the stay is VACATED and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) shall deem the sentence of Defendant amended to time served, with all other conditions set forth in the judgment of conviction unchanged, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 and the Court’s decision of March 15, 2021.

ICE shall take all reasonable steps to effect such removal safely (for both Defendant and those with whom he may come in contact) in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and consistent with applicable regulations and procedures.

I am in receipt of defense counsel’s March 16, 2021 letter in opposition to the Government’s motion for reconsideration.

Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that the parties are directed to appear for a telephonic conference on March 17, 2021 at 4:00 p.m.

The parties should be prepared to discuss how, if I deny the Government’s motion for reconsideration, the Government, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or Chinese officials can ensure that Defendant receives his second Moderna vaccine dose in a timely and safe manner.

Dated: March 17, 2021 New York, New York

The Government respectfully writes in the above-captioned matter to request: (1) an emergency stay of the Court’s order of yesterday (Dkt. No. 989 (the “Order”)), granting reconsideration of the Court’s denial of the defendant’s prior motion for compassionate release (Dkt. No. 974), published at United States v. Ng Lap Seng, 459 F. Supp.

116 (JBA), 2021 WL 917067, at *1 (D. Conn. Mar. 10, 2021) (“The opportunity for individually-identifiable inmates to opt to receive the COVID-19 vaccine represents a sea change from their previous COVID-19 infection vulnerability and inability to protect themselves against the virus, even with comorbidities.

Evidence that a defendant has been offered the vaccine, whether he accepts it or not, demonstrates that he had the ability and opportunity to take measures to markedly reduce his risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 while incarcerated.”); United States v. Harris, No. 18 Cr.

628 (JMA), 2021 WL 848865, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2021) (denying motion for compassionate release in part due to defendant’s receipt of first dose of Moderna vaccine); United States v. Mason, No. 96 Cr.

Even if the Court is not inclined to grant reconsideration on the merits, in the interest of public health and safety, both of the defendant and the number of individuals with whom he will come in contact while being transferred to and in ICE custody—and while taking a long flight or flights back to Macau, China—the Court should stay its decision for a sufficient period such that the defendant is not released to ICE custody prior to two weeks after receiving his second shot, which is only days away.

As of this writing, the facility has three reported active COVID-19 cases among its incarcerated population and none among staff.