{"id":"court_2cir_25-2726_dkt_43","court":"2Cir","case_no":"","doc_number":null,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"2Cir ECF 25-2726_dkt_43","summary_zh":"紧急动议——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok(郭文贵)案,第二巡回上诉法院 25-2726 号,ECF #43,2026年4月20日提交(签署于4月15日)。CVRA 被害人 Ryan Bai 以 pro se 身份申请'暂缓郭文贵量刑聆讯,待其 mandamus 请愿裁决后再行',彼时量刑定于2026年4月27日。Bai 主张其重新申请的 mandamus 有较高胜诉可能,理由是地区法院逾四个月未依上诉法院此前'合理时间内未受理即可重新申请'的裁定,受理其 CVRA 相关及扩大版 mandamus 提交,若量刑前仍未归档,其涉及量刑与没收资金的异议将无法被记录在案。","summary_en":"Emergency Motion — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo), 2d Cir. No. 25-2726, ECF/DktEntry #43, filed April 20, 2026 (signed April 15, 2026). Pro se CVRA victim-petitioner Ryan Bai moved to temporarily stay Miles Guo's sentencing — then scheduled for April 27, 2026 — pending resolution of his renewed petition for a writ of mandamus. Bai argues he is likely to succeed on the merits because the district court has not docketed his CVRA-related and expanded mandamus submissions more than four months after this Court's prior order allowing renewal if docketing failed within a reasonable time, and that his sentencing- and forfeiture-related objections would go unrecorded if not filed before sentencing.","body_en":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT\nThurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500\nMOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT\nDocket Number(s): _2_ 5_-_2_7_2_6 ___________ _\nMotion for: EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY STAY OF\nSENTENCING PENDING RESOLUTION OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS\nSet forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought:\nCaption fuse short title)\nPlease see in the motion\nIn re:Ranyue Bai\nMOVING PARTY: Ryan Bai\nOPPOSING PARTY: United States District Court. Southern District of New York\n----------------\n0 PI a inti ff\n0AppeUant/Petitioner\nOoefendam\n0AppeUee/Respondent\nMOVING ATTORNEY: Ryan Bai\nOPPOSING ATTORNEY: Nathan Rehn\n-'---------------\n-----------------\n[name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail]\nUnited States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.\n26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor, New York, NY 10278\n(212) 637-2354\nCourt- Judge/ Agency appealed from: United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Hon. Analisa Torres, U.S. District Judge\nPlease check appropriate boxes:\nHas movant notifiedÒposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1):\n0Yes LJ.No(explain):. _________ _\nOpposing counsel's position on motion:\nOunopposed Oopposed0,Don't Know\nDoes oppÓ counsel intendÔile a response:\nLJYes 0No ÕDon'tKnow\nFOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND\nINJUCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:\nHas this request for relief been made below?\nHas tllis relief been previously sought in tllis court?\nRequested return date and explanation of emergency:\nBYes 0.No\nYes 0No\nThe sentencing is scheduled on April 27, 2026, therefore respongding before\nthis date will prevent irreparable harm.\nIs oral argument on motion requested?\nDy es 0No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)\nHas argument date of appeal been set?\n0Yes0No If yes, enter date:. ______________________ _\nSignature of Moving Attorney:\n__\nl?L_=----z-----Date: April 15, 2026\nrf'r''-\"\nService by: OcM/ECF Oother [Attach proof of service]\nForm T-1080 (rev.12-13)\nCase: 25-2726, 04/20/2026, DktEntry: 43.1, Page 1 of 9\n\n---\n\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE\nSECOND CIRCUIT\nVictim in United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-1 18-1 (AT) Petitioner.\nSDNY Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT\nSecond Circuit No. 25-2726\nEMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY STAY OF\nSENTENCING PENDING RESOLUTION OF PETITION FOR\nWRIT OF MANDAMUS\nI, Ryan Bai, a victim under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”), 18 U.S.C. §\n3771, respectfully petition this Honorable Court to issue a temporary stay of the\nsentencing proceedings, currently scheduled for April 27, 2026, before the United\nStates District Court for the Southern District of New York in United States v.\nKwok, et al., 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT), pending full adjudication of my renewed\npetition for a writ of mandamus currently before this Court. (25-2726 Dkts. 38\nredacted, 39 sealed)\n\nI. Background\n\n● My original Mandamus petition was docketed on October 28, 2025 by this\nCourt, sought relief for the Second Circuit directing the District Court to\nupload my suppressed motions (25-2726 Dkt. 38, Exhibits A, B) and to\ndirect the District Court to adjudicate the rule60(d) motion, which I filed in\nSDNY Dkt. 733.\n\n● On the same day, the district court docketed my original mandamus as\nSDNY Dkt. 765 and publicly disclosed my original mandamus filing, which\ncontained my full personally identifiable information (“PII”). This\ndisclosure occurred without any directive from the Second Circuit\nand without any apparent legal basis, and appears to have been\nundertaken as an independent action by the district court in the exercise of\nits own discretion.\n\nCase: 25-2726, 04/20/2026, DktEntry: 43.1, Page 2 of 9\n\n---\n\n● I promptly filed emergency motions in both the Second Circuit and the\ndistrict court seeking to seal my original mandamus (25-2726 Dkt. 38,\nExhibit E) filing and to replace it with a redacted version. I respectfully\nacknowledge and appreciate that the Second Circuit granted my\nmotion on November 18, 2025, thereby protecting my personal\nidentifying information. In contrast, despite the passage of several\nmonths, the district court docket continues to reflect the unredacted\nversion of my filing, leaving my personally identifiable information publicly\nexposed in SDNY Dkt. 765. This continued disclosure has resulted in\nongoing harm, including online harassment and misuse of my identity (see\n25-2726 Dkt. 35), and raises serious concerns regarding the\nprotection of victim-related information under the Crime Victims’\nRights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771.\n\n● Following the public disclosure of my personally identifiable information\n(“PII”) in connection with my original mandamus filing, I suffered\nsubsequent harm. In response, I filed an expanded mandamus petition\n(25-2726 Dkt. 38, Exhibit D) in the Second Circuit seeking broader relief to\naddress the consequences of that disclosure. However, due to the\nprocedural complexity of appellate practice and my lack of familiarity with\nSecond Circuit filing requirements at the time, the expanded mandamus\npetition was not timely cured. As a result, the Second Circuit issued its\ndecision on my original mandamus petition on November 26, 2025, before\nthe expanded mandamus filing had been properly cured and considered.\n\n● Because my expanded mandamus petition was filed after the Court’s\ndisposition of the original mandamus, I subsequently submitted a Motion\nfor Leave to Cure the expanded mandamus petition on December 22,\n2025 (Dkts. 26, 27), seeking permission to correct procedural deficiencies\nand properly present the requested relief. On January 15, 2026, this Court\ndenied the motion for leave.\n\n● On January 21, 2026, the Second Circuit issued the mandate with respect\nto my original mandamus petition. In its order issued on November 26,\n2025, the Court expressly stated that the denial was “without prejudice to\nrenewal if the district court fails to docket the submissions within a\nreasonable time.” However, after approximately four months, the district\nCase: 25-2726, 04/20/2026, DktEntry: 43.1, Page 3 of 9\n\n---\n\ncourt had still not docketed my CVRA-related submissions. Accordingly, on\nMarch 16, 2026, I filed a motion in the Second Circuit to recall the mandate\nand to renew my petition for a writ of mandamus.\n\nII. Reason for stay\n\nLikelihood of Success:\n\nI am likely to succeed on the merits of my renewed petition for a writ of\nmandamus because the legal and procedural basis for my requested relief is\nclear.\n\nFirst, the Second Circuit explicitly stated that I could renew my mandamus\npetition “without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails to docket the\nsubmissions within a reasonable time.” More than four months have now\npassed without the District Court docketing my CVRA-related submissions,\ndirectly satisfying the condition contemplated by the Second Circuit. Importantly,\nExhibit A contains my objections related to the sentencing and forfeiture of\nfunds; if these submissions are not docketed before the sentencing\nhearing, the sentencing record will be incomplete and my objections will\nnot be considered. Moreover, the District Court’s decision to docket only my\noriginal mandamus, without separately docketing the suppressed CVRA and\nExpanded Mandamus, effectively bypasses the Court’s obligation to adjudicate\nsubstantive legal issues contained in those filings. These motions raise\nconcrete legal questions, including objections related to sentencing and\nforfeiture, which the District Court must address. By failing to docket them\nseparately, the Court has deprived me of the opportunity for these legal\nissues to be considered before the sentencing hearing, directly impacting\nthe completeness and integrity of the record. This procedural omission further\ndemonstrates the necessity and substantial merit of my renewed mandamus\npetition.\n\nSecond, my expanded mandamus filed in response to the disclosure of my\npersonally identifiable information, was a legitimate attempt to cure procedural\ndefects and secure comprehensive relief. Although this Court denied my motion\nfor leave to cure the expanded mandamus, that does not undermine my\nunderlying right to have the expanded mandamus considered by the District\nCase: 25-2726, 04/20/2026, DktEntry: 43.1, Page 4 of 9\n\n---\n\nCourt. Doing so is necessary to maintain consistency in the docket,\npreserve the integrity of the appellate record, and prevent selective\ndocketing.\n\nThird, the Second Circuit has already recognized the legal validity of my claims\nby granting relief to protect my personally identifiable information. In contrast, the\nDistrict Court has failed to redact the publicly docketed version of my original\nmandamus (SDNY Dkt. 765), leaving my full PII exposed for several months and\ndid not take any action to correct, causing ongoing harm. This disparity\ndemonstrates that my petition is not frivolous and has substantial legal merit, and\nit underscores the need for this Court to intervene to ensure that my renewed\nmandamus is properly considered. Moreover, this pattern is consistent with prior\nactions by the District Court that have treated the disclosure of sensitive\ninformation inconsistently. In SDNY Dkts. 51 and 733, the District Court\nrecognized the risks of publicly exposing private information, including in\nconnection with filings related to Trustee Luc A. Despin, and relied on such\ndisclosures to support legal findings concerning obstruction of justice and pretrial\nrelease. Yet, in my case, the District Court publicly docketed my unredacted\noriginal mandamus as Dkt. 765—containing my home address and other\npersonally identifiable information—without any directive or legal basis, despite\npreviously acknowledging similar privacy risks and failing to correct. This\ninconsistent treatment undermines the integrity of the record and creates\nprocedural ambiguity.\n\nTaken together, these facts show that I have a strong likelihood of success on\nthe merits of my renewed mandamus petition.\n\nIrreparable Harm:\nFirst, as discussed above, my Exhibit A objections relate directly to the\nsentencing and forfeiture of funds. If these submissions are not docketed and\nconsidered before the sentencing hearing, the Court will proceed without a\ncomplete record of my legally relevant filings. Once the sentencing hearing\noccurs, there is no mechanism to retroactively ensure that these objections\nare incorporated into the record or given effect, and as a result, they may\nnot be considered in calculating victim-related losses or the forfeiture fund.\n\nCase: 25-2726, 04/20/2026, DktEntry: 43.1, Page 5 of 9\n\n---\n\nSecond, the District Court’s continued public docketing of my original, unredacted\nmandamus (SDNY Dkt. 765) exposes my personally identifiable information,\nincluding my home address and employment details. This ongoing disclosure has\nalready caused online harassment and targeted misuse of my identity(25-2726\nDkt. 35), and it continues to pose a real risk of further harm. Such privacy\nviolations constitute irreparable harm because they cannot be fully remedied by\nlater sealing or redaction; once PII is public, the exposure cannot be undone,\nand the resulting consequences are persistent and cumulative.\nThird, the District Court’s selective docketing—uploading my original mandamus\nbut failing to separately docket the suppressed CVRA and Expanded Mandamus\nmotions—creates a procedural environment that undermines the integrity of the\nrecord and the consistency of judicial review. This is particularly concerning given\nthe District Court’s prior reliance on public disclosures of sensitive information in\nrelated matters, such as filings involving Trustee Luc A. Despin (SDNY Dkts. 51\nand 733). In those cases, the District Court explicitly acknowledged the risks of\npublicly exposing private information and relied on such disclosures to support\nlegal findings regarding obstruction of justice and pretrial release. By contrast,\nthe District Court has publicly docketed my unredacted mandamus without any\ndirective or legal basis, despite previously recognizing similar privacy risks in the\nLuc-related filings. This inconsistent treatment not only perpetuates exposure of\nmy PII but also compromises the integrity and completeness of the record for\nsentencing. If not corrected before the hearing, the District Court would be forced\nto make critical sentencing decisions based on an incomplete and procedurally\nskewed record, which constitutes irreparable harm to both my rights and the\njudicial process.\nTaken together, the irreparable harm to my personal privacy, the integrity of the\nsentencing record—including the precedent set by Luc-related disclosures—and\nthe potential impact on the consideration of victim-related losses and the\nforfeiture fund demonstrates the necessity of granting a temporary stay pending\nresolution of my renewed mandamus petition.\nBalance of Equities:\n\nGranting a temporary stay serves to protect my fundamental rights under the\nCVRA, preserve the integrity of the appellate and district court records, and\nensure that the sentencing court has a complete and accurate record before\nCase: 25-2726, 04/20/2026, DktEntry: 43.1, Page 6 of 9\n\n---\n\nproceeding. In contrast, a short delay in the sentencing hearing will cause\nminimal disruption to the proceedings and will not prejudice the Government or\nthe defendant. By contrast, failing to stay the proceedings risks irreparable harm\nto my personal privacy, compromises the completeness of the sentencing\nrecord—including the consideration of objections relating to forfeiture, victim\nlosses, and the funds at issue—and may entrench selective or inconsistent\ndocketing practices, as evidenced by prior disclosures such as those involving\nTrustee Luc A. Despin. Accordingly, the balance of equities strongly favors\ngranting a temporary stay.\n\nPublic Interest:\n\nGranting a temporary stay is strongly in the public interest because it implicates\nsystemic concerns regarding the integrity of judicial proceedings, the protection\nof victim rights, and the consistent application of procedural safeguards across\nfederal courts. If the sentencing proceeds without correcting the issues presented\nhere, it risks creating a harmful precedent in several critical respects.\n\nFirst, it may signal that district courts may publicly disclose sensitive personally\nidentifiable information without timely correction, even where such disclosure has\nalready been recognized as improper, thereby undermining confidence in the\njudiciary’s ability to safeguard privacy—particularly for victims participating in\nlegal proceedings.\n\nSecond, it may establish a precedent that courts may selectively docket or\ndecline to docket CVRA-related submissions prior to sentencing, effectively\ndepriving victims of their statutory right to be heard at a critical stage of the\nproceedings. Such a practice would weaken the enforceability of the Crime\nVictims’ Rights Act and diminish meaningful victim participation.\n\nThird, it risks endorsing inconsistent and selective docketing practices with\nrespect to mandamus-related filings, where certain submissions are docketed\nwhile others raising substantive legal issues are not, thereby undermining the\nintegrity and completeness of the record and interfering with meaningful\nappellate review.\n\nFourth, it may create a particularly troubling procedural precedent whereby\nCase: 25-2726, 04/20/2026, DktEntry: 43.1, Page 7 of 9\n\n---\n\na district court may bypass its obligation to docket and adjudicate properly\nsubmitted motions by instead docketing an appellate mandamus filing that\nmerely references those motions. Such a practice would allow courts to\navoid addressing substantive legal issues—especially those requiring\njudicial determination—while creating the appearance that the matters have\nbeen formally presented on the record. This form of procedural\nsubstitution undermines both the function of the district court and the\nsupervisory role of the appellate court.\nThese concerns are not limited to this case. If left unaddressed, they may\ninfluence broader judicial practice by implicitly permitting selective docketing,\ninconsistent privacy protections, procedural bypass mechanisms, and incomplete\nrecords at the sentencing stage—one of the most critical phases of a criminal\nproceeding.\nAccordingly, the public interest strongly favors a temporary stay to ensure that\nthe record is complete, consistent, and reliable before sentencing proceeds, and\nto prevent the establishment of practices that could undermine the fairness and\nintegrity of judicial proceedings in future cases.\nIII. Relief requested\nI respectfully request that the Second Circuit issue an immediate stay of all\nsentencing proceedings in the United States District Court for the case United\nStates v. Kwok, et al., 1:23‑ CR‑ 118‑ 1 (AT) until my pending mandamus\npetition (25-2726 Dkts. 38, 39) before this Court is fully adjudicated.\nI declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the\nforegoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,\ninformation, and belief.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRyan Bai\nApril 15, 2026\nCase: 25-2726, 04/20/2026, DktEntry: 43.1, Page 8 of 9\n\n---\n\nCertificate of Service\nIn re: Ryan Bai, Petitioner\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit\nCase No: 25-2726\nSDNY Case: United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\nI, Ryan Bai, hereby certify as follows:\n\nOn April 15, 2026, I submitted true and correct copy of the following documents:\nwere served on the following party\n\nEMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY STAY OF\nSENTENCING PENDING RESOLUTION OF PETITION FOR\nWRIT OF MANDAMUS\nNathan Rehn\nUnited States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York\n26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor\nNew York, NY 10278\nExecuted on April 15, 2026.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRyan Bai\n\nCase: 25-2726, 04/20/2026, DktEntry: 43.1, Page 9 of 9","body_zh":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\nThurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse（瑟古德·马歇尔美国法院大楼）40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 电话：212-857-8500\n动议信息表\n案号：25-2726\n动议事由：在职务履行令状请愿书决议前暂缓量刑的紧急动议\n在下方载明所寻求救济之准确、完整陈述：\n案件标题（使用简略标题）\n请见动议内部\n关于：Ranyue Bai（白冉跃）\n动议方：Ryan Bai（白冉跃）\n相对方：United States District Court, Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n\n[ ] 原告\n[X] 上诉人/请愿人\n[ ] 被告\n[ ] 被上诉人/相对人\n动议方律师：Ryan Bai\n相对方律师：Nathan Rehn\n\n[律师姓名，附律所、地址、电话号码及电子邮件]\nUnited States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦检察官办公室）\n26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor, New York, NY 10278\n(212) 637-2354\n被上诉法院-法官/机构：United States District Court, Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院），Hon. Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯阁下），美国联邦地区法官\n请勾选相应方框：\n动议方是否已通知相对方律师（依《本地规则》第 27.1 条要求）：\n[X] 是 [ ] 否（说明）：__________\n相对方律师对动议的立场：\n[ ] 不反对 [ ] 反对 [X] 不知情\n相对方律师是否打算提交答辩：\n[ ] 是 [ ] 否 [X] 不知情\n针对紧急动议、暂缓执行动议及上诉期间禁令动议：\n本救济请求是否已在下级法院提出？\n此前是否已在本院寻求过该救济？\n要求的回复日期及紧急情况说明：\n[X] 是 [ ] 否\n[X] 是 [ ] 否\n量刑程序定于 2026年4月27日 进行，因此在此日期之前作出答复将防止发生不可弥补的损害。\n是否请求对动议进行口头辩论？\n[X] 是 [ ] 否（口头辩论请求未必会获准）\n上诉辩论日期是否已确定？\n[ ] 是 [X] 否 若是，请输入日期：__________\n动议方律师签名：\nRyan Bai 日期：2026年4月15日\n送达方式：[X] CM/ECF [ ] 其他 [附送达证明]\n表格 T-1080 (rev.12-13)\n案件：25-2726, 04/20/2026, 案卷记录：43.1, 第 1 页，共 9 页\n\n---\n\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\nUnited States v. Kwok, et al.（美国诉郭文贵等人案）, 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT) 之受害人 请愿人。\nSDNY（纽约南区联邦地区法院）案号：1:23-cr-00118-AT\n第二巡回上诉法院案号：25-2726\n在职务履行令状请愿书决议前暂缓量刑的紧急动议\n我，Ryan Bai（白冉跃），系依据 Crime Victims’ Rights Act（《犯罪受害者权利法案》，“CVRA”），18 U.S.C. § 3771 规定的受害人，谨向本尊敬的法院提出请愿，请求在目前提交给本院的重新提出的职务履行令状请愿书（25-2726 案卷第 38 号（删节版）、第 39 号（密封版））得到全面裁判之前，暂时中止目前定于 2026年4月27日 在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）审理的 United States v. Kwok, et al.（美国诉郭文贵等人案）, 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT) 中的量刑程序。\n\nI. 背景\n\n● 本院于 2025年10月28日 登记了我最初的职务履行令状请愿书，该请愿书寻求第二巡回上诉法院指示地区法院上传我被压下的动议（25-2726 案卷第 38 号，附件 A、B），并指示地区法院裁判我在 SDNY 案卷第 733 号中提交的依第 60(d) 条提出的动议。\n\n● 同日，地区法院将我最初的职务履行令状登记为 SDNY 案卷第 765 号，并公开披露了我最初的职务履行令状文件，其中包含我的完整个人身份识别信息（“PII”）。该披露是在没有任何来自第二巡回上诉法院的指令且没有任何明显法律依据的情况下发生的，并且看似是地区法院自行行使其裁量权所采取的独立行为。\n\n案件：25-2726, 04/20/2026, 案卷记录：43.1, 第 2 页，共 9 页\n\n---\n\n● 我迅速在第二巡回上诉法院和地区法院同时提交了紧急动议，请求将我最初的职务履行令状（25-2726 案卷第 38 号，附件 E）文件予以密封，并以删节版取而代之。我谨对第二巡回上诉法院于 2025年11月18日 准许我的动议表示知悉和感谢，此举保护了我的个人身份信息。相比之下，尽管已经过去了几个月，地区法院的案卷仍然显示该文件的未删节版本，使我的个人身份识别信息在 SDNY 案卷第 765 号中一直处于公开暴露状态。这种持续的披露已导致持续的损害，包括网络骚扰和对我身份的滥用（见 25-2726 案卷第 35 号），并引发了对《犯罪受害者权利法案》（18 U.S.C. § 3771）下受害人相关信息保护的严重关切。\n\n● 在因我最初的职务履行令状提交而导致我的个人身份识别信息（“PII”）被公开披露后，我遭受了后续的损害。作为回应，我在第二巡回上诉法院提交了一份扩大的职务履行令状请愿书（25-2726 案卷第 38 号，附件 D），寻求更广泛的救济以应对该披露带来的后果。然而，由于上诉程序的复杂性以及我当时对第二巡回上诉法院提交要求的不熟悉，扩大的职务履行令状请愿书未能及时补正。结果，第二巡回上诉法院在扩大的职务履行令状文件得到妥善补正和审理之前，于 2025年11月26日 对我最初的职务履行令状请愿书作出了决定。\n\n● 由于我的扩大职务履行令状请愿书是在法院对我最初的职务履行令状作出处置之后提交的，我随后于 2025年12月22日 提交了一份请求准予补正扩大职务履行令状请愿书的动议（案卷第 26、27 号），请求准许纠正程序缺陷并妥善提出所请求的救济。2026年1月15日，本院驳回了该准予请求的动议。\n\n● 2026年1月21日，第二巡回上诉法院就我最初的职务履行令状请愿书签发了执行指令。在其于 2025年11月26日 发布的命令中，法院明确指出，该驳回“不影响在地区法院未能在合理时间内将提交的文件登记入卷时重新提出”。然而，在大约四个月之后，地区法院\n\n案件：25-2726, 04/20/2026, 案卷记录：43.1, 第 3 页，共 9 页\n\n---\n\n仍未将我与 CVRA 相关的提交文件登记入卷。因此，2026年3月16日，我在第二巡回上诉法院提交了一项撤回执行指令并重新提出职务履行令状请愿书的动议。\n\nII. 暂缓执行的理由\n\n胜诉可能性：\n\n在我重新提出的职务履行令状请愿书的实体审理中，我很有可能胜诉，因为我所请求救济的法律和程序依据是明确的。\n\n第一，第二巡回上诉法院明确表示，我可以重新提出职务履行令状请愿书，“不影响在地区法院未能在合理时间内将提交的文件登记入卷时重新提出”。如今四个多月已经过去，地区法院仍未将我与 CVRA 相关的提交文件登记入卷，直接满足了第二巡回上诉法院所设定的条件。重要的是，附件 A 包含了我与量刑及资金没收相关的异议；如果这些提交文件在量刑听证会之前未被登记入卷，量刑记录将是不完整的，我的异议也将得不到考虑。此外，地区法院仅将我最初的职务履行令状登记入卷，而未单独将受压制的 CVRA 文件及扩大的职务履行令状登记入卷的决定，实际上规避了法院对这些文件中所含实质性法律问题进行裁判的义务。这些动议提出了具体的法律问题，包括与量刑和没收相关的异议，地区法院必须予以处理。由于未能将它们单独登记入卷，法院剥夺了我在量刑听证会之前让这些法律问题得到考虑的机会，直接影响了记录的完整性与真实性。这一程序上的疏漏进一步证明了我重新提出的职务履行令状请愿书的必要性和重大实质理由。\n\n第二，我因个人身份识别信息被披露而提交的扩大职务履行令状，是一次旨在补正程序缺陷并获得全面救济的正当尝试。尽管本院驳回了我请求准予补正扩大职务履行令状的动议，但这并不损害我在实体上要求地区法院考虑该扩大职务履行令状的权利。\n\n案件：25-2726, 04/20/2026, 案卷记录：43.1, 第 4 页，共 9 页\n\n---\n\n这样做对于保持案卷的一致性、维护上诉记录的完整性以及防止选择性登记入卷是必要的。\n\n第三，第二巡回上诉法院通过准予救济以保护我的个人身份识别信息，已经确认了我主张的法律有效性。相比之下，地区法院未能对公开登记入卷的我最初的职务履行令状版本（SDNY 案卷第 765 号）进行删节处理，使我的完整 PII 暴露了数月之久，且未采取任何纠正行动，造成了持续的损害。这种差异表明我的请愿并非毫无根据，而是具有重大的法律实质理由，这也强调了本院有必要介入，以确保我重新提出的职务履行令状得到妥善考虑。此外，这种模式与地区法院以往不一致处理敏感信息披露的行为是一致的。在 SDNY 案卷第 51 号和第 733 号中，地区法院认识到了公开暴露私人信息的风险，包括与 Trustee Luc A. Despin（托管人卢克·A·德斯平）相关的提交文件中的信息，并依靠此类披露来支持有关妨碍司法公正和审前释放的法律认定。然而，在我的案件中，地区法院却在没有任何指令或法律依据的情况下，将我未删节的原始职务履行令状作为第 765 号案卷公开登记入卷——其中包含我的家庭住址和其他个人身份识别信息——尽管其此前曾承认过类似的隐私风险，却未予纠正。这种不一致的处理损害了记录的完整性，并造成了程序上的模棱两可。\n\n综合来看，这些事实表明，我在重新提出的职务履行令状请愿书的实体审理中具有很高的胜诉可能性。\n\n不可弥补的损害：\n第一，如上所述，我在附件 A 中的异议直接关系到量刑和资金没收。如果在量刑听证会之前这些提交文件未被登记入卷并予以考虑，法院将在没有我具有法律相关性的文件的完整记录的情况下进行审理。一旦量刑听证会举行，就没有任何机制可以在事后确保这些异议被纳入记录或产生效力，结果导致在计算与受害人相关的损失或没收基金时，这些异议可能不会被考虑在内。\n\n案件：25-2726, 04/20/2026, 案卷记录：43.1, 第 5 页，共 9 页\n\n---\n\n其次，地区法院继续公开登记我原始的、未经遮盖的调卷令申请（SDNY Dkt. 765），暴露了我的个人身份信息（Personally Identifiable Information，简称 PII），包括我的家庭住址和工作单位信息。这种持续的信息披露已经引发了网络骚扰和针对我身份的滥用（25-2726 Dkt. 35），并且仍在持续构成进一步受害的现实风险。此类侵犯隐私的行为构成无法挽回的损害，因为事后进行封存或遮盖无法使其得到完全补救；PII 一旦公开，泄露便不可逆转，且由此造成的后果具有持续性和累积性。\n\n第三，地区法院的选择性登记——上传了我原始的调卷令申请，却未能单独登记被压制的 CVRA（《犯罪受害者权利法案》，Crime Victims' Rights Act）动议和扩展调卷令动议——造成了一种破坏记录完整性及司法审查一致性的程序环境。鉴于地区法院此前在相关案件中对敏感信息的公开披露有所依赖，例如涉及破产受托人 Luc A. Despin（卢克·A·德斯平）的案卷材料（SDNY Dkts. 51 和 733），这尤其令人担忧。在那些案件中，地区法院明确承认了公开披露私人信息的风险，并依据此类披露来支持有关妨碍司法公正和审前释放的法律裁定。相比之下，尽管地区法院此前在涉及 Luc 的案卷中承认了类似的隐私风险，却在没有任何指示或法律依据的情况下公开登记了我未经遮盖的调卷令申请。这种不一致的对待不仅使我的 PII 持续暴露，而且损害了量刑记录的完整性和完备性。如果在听证会前不予纠正，地区法院将被迫基于一份不完整且在程序上有偏差的记录做出关键的量刑决定，这对我个人的权利和司法程序均构成无法挽回的损害。\n\n综上所述，对我个人隐私造成的无法挽回的损害、量刑记录的完整性（包括由涉及 Luc 的披露所确立的先例）、以及对受害者相关损失审议和没收基金的潜在影响，共同证明了在本院对我重新提出的调卷令请愿书作出裁决之前，准予临时中止的必要性。\n\n利益衡量：\n\n准予临时中止有助于保护我在 CVRA 项下的基本权利，维护上诉法院和地区法院案卷记录的完整性，并确保量刑法院在推进审判前拥有完整且准确的记录。相比之下，量刑听证会的短暂推迟对诉讼程序造成的干扰微乎其微，也不会损害政府或被告的利益。相反，如果不中止诉讼程序，则存在对我的个人隐私造成无法挽回的损害的风险，损害量刑记录的完整性——包括对与没收、受害者损失及涉案资金相关异议的审议——并可能使选择性或不一致的案卷登记做法固化，正如先前涉及受托人 Luc A. Despin 的披露所证明的那样。因此，利益衡量强烈支持准予临时中止。\n\n公共利益：\n\n准予临时中止极符合公共利益，因为这涉及对司法程序的完整性、受害者权利的保护以及联邦法院系统内程序保障的一致适用的系统性关切。如果量刑程序在未纠正此处提出的问题的情况下继续进行，可能会在以下几个关键方面开创有害的先例。\n\n第一，这可能发出一个信号，即地区法院可以公开披露敏感的个人身份信息而不及时纠正，即使此类披露已被认定为不当，从而削弱公众对司法机构保护隐私能力的信心——特别是对参与法律诉讼的受害者而言。\n\n第二，这可能确立一个先例，即法院可以在量刑前选择性登记或拒绝登记与 CVRA 相关的提交材料，从而实质上剥夺受害者在诉讼关键阶段陈述意见的法定权利。这种做法将削弱《犯罪受害者权利法案》的可执行性，并减少受害者实质性参与的机会。\n\n第三，这可能会纵容在调卷令相关案卷材料上采取不一致和选择性登记的做法，即某些提交材料被登记，而其他提出实质性法律问题的材料却未被登记，从而破坏记录的完整性和完备性，并干扰实质性的上诉审查。\n\n第四，这可能会开创一个尤为令人不安的程序先例，即地区法院可以通过登记一份仅仅提及这些动议的上诉调卷令文件，来规避其登记和裁决正当提交之动议的法定义务。这种做法将允许法院规避处理实质性法律问题——特别是那些需要司法裁决的问题——同时制造出这些事项已正式呈现在记录中的假象。这种形式的程序替代既破坏了地区法院的职能，也破坏了上诉法院的监督职能。\n\n这些关切不仅限于本案。如果不加以解决，它们可能会通过在量刑阶段（刑事诉讼中最关键的阶段之一）默许选择性登记、不一致的隐私保护、程序规避机制以及不完整的记录，进而影响更广泛的司法实践。\n\n因此，公共利益强烈支持发布临时中止令，以确保在量刑程序进行前案卷记录是完整、一致和可靠的，并防止确立可能在未来案件中破坏司法程序公正与完整的做法。\n\nIII. 申请的救济\n\n我谨请求 Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）对 United States District Court（美国地区法院）审理的 United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)（美国诉郭文贵等人案）中的所有量刑程序立即予以中止，直至本院对我正在审理中的调卷令请愿书（25-2726 Dkts. 38, 39）作出最终裁决。\n\n根据 28 U.S.C. § 1746，我谨在接受伪证罪处罚的前提下声明，就我所知、所悉及所信，前述陈述均真实无误。\n\n谨此提交，\nRyan Bai\n2026年4月15日\n\n送达证明\n关于：请愿人 Ryan Bai\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit（美国第二巡回上诉法院）\n案号：25-2726\nSDNY（纽约南区联邦地区法院）案号：United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n我，Ryan Bai，特此证明如下：\n\n在 2026年4月15日，我提交了以下文件的真实准确副本：\n已送达给下列当事方\n\n在调卷令请愿书裁决前申请临时中止量刑的紧急动议\nNathan Rehn\nUnited States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦检察官办公室）\n26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor\nNew York, NY 10278\n签署于 2026年4月15日。\n谨此提交，\nRyan Bai","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2661,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 09:29:38"}