U p o n t h e a p pli c ati o n o f t h e U nit e d St at e s, b y t h e U nit e d St at e s Att o r n e y f o r t h e S o ut h e r n Di st ri ct o f N e w Y or k, D a mi a n Willi a m s, b y A s si st a nt U nit e d St at e s Att o r n e y s A s hl e y

Ni c ol a s a n d A n dr e w J o n e s; a n d A n d b e c a u s e c o u n s el f o r t h e d e f e n d a nt h a s i n f o r m e d t h e b ail r e vi e w h e a ri n g p ri o r t o C o u rt t h at s h e i s n ot a v ail a bl e f o r a 2: 0 0 p. m. o n J a n u a r y 2 7, 2 0 2 2; It i s o r d e r e d t h at t h e C o u rt will h ol d

Sarah L. Cave, United States Magistrate Judge: This Order is entered, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f} and the Due Process Protections Act, Pub. L. No 116-182, 134 Stat. 894 (Oct. 21, 2020), to confirm the Government’s disclosure obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny, and to summarize the possible consequences ofviolating those obligations.

The foregoing obligations are continuing ones and apply to materials that become knownto the Governmentin the future.

In the event the Government believes that a disclosure under this Order would compromise witness Safety, victim rights, national security, a sensitive law-enforcement technique, or any other substantial governmentinterest, it may apply to the Court for a modification of its obligations, which may include in camera review or withholding or subjecting to a protective order all or part of the information otherwise subject to disclosure.” For purposes of this Order, the Government has an affirmative obligation to seek all information subject to disclosure under this Order from all current or former federal, state, and local prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and other officers who have participated in the prosecution, or investigation that led to the prosecution, of the offense or offenses with which the defendantis charged.

if the Government fails to comply with this Order, the Court, in addition to ordering production of the information, may: (1) specify the terms and conditions of such production; (2) grant a continuance; (3) impose evidentiary sanctions; (4) impose contempt or other sanctions on any lawyer responsible for violations of the 1 This Order does not purport to set forth an exhaustive list of the Government's disclosure obligations.

Government’s disclosure obligations, or refer the matter to disciplinary authorities; (5) dismiss charges before trial or vacate a conviction after trial or a guilty plea; or (6) enter any other order thatis just under the circumstances.

522 (GHW) Dear Judge Woods, We write, with the consent of the government and Pretrial Services, to request a modification of Mr. Santos’s bail conditions to include a curfew rather than home detention, and permit him to obtain employment.

Currently, the conditions of Mr. Santos’s release only allow him to leave his home for dialysis, other medical appointments, and to meet with counsel.

As noted above, both the government and Pretrial Services consent to this request with the caveat that Mr. Santos not obtain overnight employment.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that the court modify Mr. Santos’s conditions of release to permit him to seek and obtain employment and that his home confinement be replaced with a curfew (the hours decided at the discretion of Pretrial Services).

This application provides insufficient justification for the proposed modification of the conditions of Mr. Santos's pretrial release.

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: The status conference scheduled in this matter for January 27, 2023 will instead take place on January 17, 2023 at 4:30 p.m. in Courtroom 12C, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007.

United States District Judge

522 (GHW) Dear Judge Woods, I move the Court modify the conditions of Mr. Santos’s home confinement to allow him to visit his mother for Thanksgiving on November 24, 2022, from 4pm to 9pm in the Bronx, New York.

The government has deferred to Pretrial Services with respect to this request and Pretrial Services has expressed that its general policy is to oppose all leave requests for social purposes for defendants subject to home incarceration.

Thanksgiving is a special time of year and Mr. Santos would only be away from his home for approximately five hours close by in the Bronx, New York.

Mr. Santos has recently been in full compliance with his release conditions.

The conditions of Mr. Santos’s pretrial release are modified as follows: the defendant may leave his residence on Thanksgiving Day, November 24, 2022, to visit his mother in the Bronx, New York.

This Order is entered, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f) and the Due Process Protections Act, Pub. L. No 116–182, 134 Stat. 894 (Oct. 21, 2020), to confirm the Government’s disclosure obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny, and to summarize the possible consequences of violating those obligations.

In the event the Government believes that a disclosure under this Order would compromise witness safety, victim rights, national security, a sensitive law-enforcement technique, or any other substantial government interest, it may apply to the Court for a modification of its obligations, which may include in camera review or withholding or subjecting to a protective order all or part of the information otherwise subject to disclosure.2 For purposes of this Order, the Government has an affirmative obligation to seek all information subject to disclosure under this Order from all current or former federal, state, and local prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and other officers who have participated in the prosecution, or investigation that led to the prosecution, of the offense or offenses with which the defendant is charged.

If the Government fails to comply with this Order, the Court, in addition to ordering production of the information, may: (1) specify the terms and conditions of such production; (2) grant a continuance; (3) impose evidentiary sanctions; (4) impose contempt or other sanctions on any lawyer responsible for violations of the Government’s disclosure obligations, or refer the matter to disciplinary authorities;

1 This Order does not purport to set forth an exhaustive list of the Government’s disclosure obligations.

2 The Classified Information Procedures Act sets forth separate procedures to be followed in the event that the Government believes matters relating to classified information may arise in connection with the prosecution.