{"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":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2661,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-07-07 13:44:16"}