17‐165
United States v. Zhong
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.
CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007 IS
PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A
SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY
MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC
DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING
TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 13th day of March, two thousand
4 seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK,
7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
8 Circuit Judges,
9 GREGORY H. WOODS,
10 District Judge.*
11 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
13
14 Appellee,
15
16 v. No. 17‐165‐cr
17
18 DAN ZHONG,
19
20 Defendant‐Appellant.**
21 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
22
* Judge Gregory H. Woods, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
sitting by designation.
** The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption to conform to the caption above.
1
1 FOR APPELLEE: IAN C. RICHARDSON (Susan Corkery,
2 Alexander A. Solomon, Douglas M.
3 Pravda, Nicholas J. Moscow, on the
4 brief), Assistant United States
5 Attorneys, for Robert L. Capers,
6 United States Attorney for the
7 Eastern District of New York,
8 Brooklyn, NY.
9
10 FOR APPELLANT: NATHANIEL H. AKERMAN (Joshua
11 Colangelo‐Bryan, on the brief), Dorsey
12 & Whitney LLP, New York, NY.
13
14 Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern
15 District of New York (Dora L. Irizarry, Chief Judge).
16 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
17 AND DECREED that the order of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
18 Dan Zhong appeals from the denial of his motion for bail before trial and
19 the District Court’s refusal to reopen his bail hearing to consider additional
20 evidence relating to Zhong’s risk of flight. We assume the parties’ familiarity
21 with the facts and record of the prior proceedings, to which we refer only as
22 necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
23 Based on our review of the record, we discern no error in the District
24 Court’s decision orally on the record to deny Zhong’s request for bail pending
25 trial on the ground that he represented a risk of flight. Nor do we see any error
2
1 in the District Court’s denial of Zhong’s request to reopen the bail hearing to
2 provide additional evidence. The District Court referred to that evidence and
3 observed that “there is no information that . . . exists that was not known to the
4 movant in this case, the defendant, at the time of the hearing and that has a
5 material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will
6 reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant.”
7 We have considered Zhong’s remaining arguments and conclude that they
8 are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the District Court is
9 AFFIRMED.1
10 FOR THE COURT:
11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
Appellant also moves to supplement the record on appeal. Because we affirm the District Court’s order
1
denying bail, that motion is hereby denied as moot.
3