{"id":"court_2cir_26-077_emergency_stay","court":"2Cir","case_no":"","doc_number":null,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"2Cir ECF 26-077_emergency_stay","summary_zh":"暂缓宣判紧急动议——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵/Guo Wengui/Miles Guo）案第二巡回上诉法院26-077号 ECF #12（2026年4月18日提交）。申请人Chunk Chyi（本名Chunhong Qi,pro se）请求在其职务执行令（mandamus）申请（2026年1月14日立案,并同步作为SDNY Dkt.788提交）获得裁定前,暂缓原定2026年4月27日对郭文贵的宣判。动议主张:辩方在量刑材料中援引“Geyer代理的Hex请愿”却未回应此前的程序异议,存在夸大受害人数与损失金额、扭曲量刑指南区间之虞;并称SDNY第596号命令基于“虚假事实前提”将其列为无理缠讼者并施加预先审查限制,做法与 Moates v. Barkley 判例不符。","summary_en":"Emergency motion to stay sentencing — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), Second Circuit No. 26-077, ECF #12 (filed April 18, 2026). Pro se petitioner Chunk Chyi (real name Chunhong Qi) asks the court to stay Guo's sentencing, then scheduled for April 27, 2026, pending resolution of his writ of mandamus petition (docketed January 14, 2026, also filed as SDNY Dkt. 788). The motion argues defense counsel's sentencing submissions relied on a \"Geyer-represented Hex Petition\" despite unresolved procedural objections, risking inflated victim counts and loss amounts that would distort the Guidelines range, and contends SDNY Order 596 — labeling Chyi a vexatious filer subject to pre-filing screening — rested on false factual premises inconsistent with Moates v. Barkley.","body_en":"Form T-1080 (rev 12-13)\nUNITED 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): ________________________________________        _______________Caption [use short title]_____________________\nMotion for: ______________________________________________\n________________________________________________________\n________________________________________________________\nSet forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought:\n________________________________________________________\n________________________________________________________\n________________________________________________________\n________________________________________________________\n________________________________________________________\n________________________________________________________\nMOVING PARTY:_______________________________________ OPPOSING PARTY:____________________________________________\n___Plaintiff\n    ___Defendant\n___Appellant/Petitioner     ___Appellee/Respondent\nMOVING ATTORNEY:___________________________________ OPPOSING ATTORNEY:________________________________________\n________________________________________________________  _______________________________________________________________\n________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________\n________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________\nCourt- Judge/ Agency appealed from: _________________________________________________________________________________________\nPlease check appropriate boxes:\n   FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND\n     INJUCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:\n\nIs oral argument on motion requested?\n ___Yes  ___No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)\nHas argument date of appeal been set?\n ___ Yes ___No  If yes, enter date:_______________________________________________________\nSignature of Moving Attorney:\n_________________________________ Date:__________________  Service by: ___CM/ECF   ___Other [Attach proof of service]\n[name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail]\nHas this request for relief been made below?                   ___Yes  ___No\nHas this relief been previously sought in this court?\n ___Yes  ___No\nRequested return date and explanation of emergency:     ________________\n_____________________________________________________________\n_____________________________________________________________\n_____________________________________________________________\n_____________________________________________________________\nHas movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1):\n___Yes   ___No (explain):__________________________\n\n_______________________________________________\nOpposing counsel’s position on motion:\n___Unopposed ___Opposed ___Don’t Know\n\nDoes opposing counsel intend to file a response:\n___Yes    ___No    ___Don’t Know\n26-077\nEMERGENCY MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY STAY\n OF SENTENCING PENDING RESOLUTION OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS\nPlease see in the motion\nChunk Chyi (real name: Chunhong Qi)\nUnited States District Court, Southern District of New York\nChunk Chyi (real name: Chunhong Qi)\nNathan Rehn\n26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor, New York, NY 10278\n(212)-637-2354\nUnited States District Court, Southern District of New York, Hon. Analisa Torres, U.S. District Judge\nBefore Sentencing April 27, 2026, to prevent irreparable harm\nApril 15, 2026\nIn Re: Chunk Chyi\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.1, Page 1 of 1\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.1, Page 1 of 1\n\n---\n\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE\nSECOND CIRCUIT\nIn re: Chunk Chyi\nSDNY Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT\nSecond Circuit No. 26-077\nEMERGENCY MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY STAY OF\nSENTENCING PENDING RESOLUTION OF PETITION FOR\nWRIT OF MANDAMUS\nI, Chunk Chyi, appearing pro se, respectfully move this Court to stay the\nsentencing scheduled in SDNY Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT on April 27, 2026,\npending the resolution of my Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Second Circuit\nCase No. 26-077.\n\nAbsent a stay, sentencing will proceed on a materially unreliable record,\nincluding unresolved procedural defects, coercive participation\nconstraints, and contested evidentiary submissions—creating a serious\nrisk that unverified and non-reviewable victim determinations will\nimproperly influence the calculation of loss, restitution, and guideline\nenhancements, and permanently entrench structural errors affecting my\nstatutory rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and the integrity of the\nproceedings.\nI. Background and New Development\nMy Mandamus petition was docketed by this Court on January 14, 2026, it was\nalso uploaded to the District Court’s docket as Dkt. 788. During this period, the\nissues I raised in my district court filings have not only gone unaddressed, but\nsimilar concerns have subsequently been validated by other pro se mandamus\npetitions filed in the Second Circuit. Some of the procedural deficiencies I initially\nidentified have now escalated into more serious and systemic problems that\ndirectly bear on sentencing, highlighting the continuing risk of irreparable harm\nto the integrity of the record and to my statutory rights under the Crime Victims’\nRights Act.\nRESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 1 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 1 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 1 of 12\n\n---\n\nII. Structural Overview of Interrelated Procedural Issues\n\nThe issues presented here do not arise in isolation. Rather, they reflect\ninterrelated conditions that collectively shape the formation of the sentencing\nrecord. Formal restrictions within the Court—including pre-filing limitations and\nvexatious designations—operate alongside external community-based pressures\nand centralized channels through which information is collected and transmitted.\nTogether, these conditions may limit both the scope of participation and the\nindependence of evidentiary submissions. As a result, the record before the\nCourt risks reflecting a filtered or constrained subset of available information,\nrather than a fully independent evidentiary landscape.\nIII. Use of the Geyer-Represented Hex Petition in Sentencing\nSubmission (SDNY, Dkt 822) Without Addressing Prior\nProcedural Warnings\n\nAs reflected in SDNY Docket Nos. 507, 508, 517, 519, 554, 555, and 679, I\nrepeatedly raised concerns regarding the procedural legitimacy of Bradford L.\nGeyer’s purported representation, which I identified as arising from a centralized\nand coordinated channel associated with the NFSC Alliance. In Dkt. 508, I\nsubmitted documentary evidence, including emails requesting termination of any\nalleged representation relationship with Mr. Geyer. In Dkt. 519, I further moved to\nremove his asserted third-party status from the proceedings. These concerns\nwere first raised in May 2025, but neither defense counsel nor the Government\naddressed them. Instead, my filings were met with restrictive measures, including\nvexatious labeling and pre-filing screening.\nNotwithstanding these unresolved objections, defense counsel subsequently\nrelied on the Geyer-related Hex Petition in sentencing submissions (SDNY Dkt.\n822) without clarifying or curing the procedural deficiencies I had highlighted.\nThis selective reliance, despite the record of objections, reliance on\nprocedurally contested submissions for sentencing purposes risks\ninflating both victim counts and loss amounts, thereby directly distorting\nthe advisory guideline range.\n\nImportantly, these concerns are corroborated by independent filings from other\npetitioners. For example, in Second Circuit Case No. 25‑ 2726, Ryan Bai\nRESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 2 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 2 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 2 of 12\n\n---\n\nidentified related issues in Docket Nos. 34, 35, and 40, including the procedural\ndeficiencies arising from reliance on the Geyer-related submission as sentencing\nsupport. This independent corroboration underscores that the problems are\nsystemic rather than isolated, affecting multiple participants and\nhighlighting structural risks to the accuracy and fairness of the record.\n\nIV. Judicial Reliance on False Factual Premises Resulting in\nVexatious Designation, Coerced Procedural Status, and Its\nEntrenchment in the Record\n\nAccording to my original mandamus, I highlight that SDNY Order 596 was issued\nbased on demonstrably false factual premises (Exhibit F), was inconsistent\nwith Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208 (2d Cir. 1998), and further resulted\nin my being improperly labeled as vexatious and subjected to restrictive pre-\nfiling screening. Under the coercive procedural regime imposed by the Court, I\nwas compelled to assume a procedural standing that I had repeatedly disclaimed\nand had no desire to exercise. My compelled Motion SDNY Dkt. 679, which fully\nexplains the circumstances necessitating this forced assumption of standing, has\nalready been docketed and embedded in the official record, raising serious\nconcerns regarding the integrity of the sentencing record.\nV. Early Warning of Prosecution Victim Transparency Issues\nCorroborated by Later Sentencing Submissions\nI raised concerns regarding the transparency of the prosecution’s handling of\nvictim information in my early filings (SDNY Dkts. 510, 513, 522, 555, 557).\nHowever, in SDNY Dkt. 822, defense counsel relies on the Geyer-related Hex\nPetition—despite its unresolved procedural defects—as support for excluding\ncertain individuals from victim status. At the same time, the Government\ncontinues to assert that all participants constitute victims, relying on an undefined\nand unverified “thousands of victims” figure (SDNY Dkt. 833, p. 60). My repeated\nearly warnings regarding the lack of transparency and methodology in\nvictim identification were ignored by both the parties and the Court.\nThis presents a structural defect bearing directly on sentencing:\nRESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 3 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 3 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 3 of 12\n\n---\n\nFirst, a methodology gap. The Government has invoked a large but undefined\nvictim population across multiple stages, without disclosing any verifiable\nmethodology—no explanation of validation criteria, duplication controls, or\nevidentiary standards for determining victim status.\nSecond, a non-reviewable figure. Because no methodology is disclosed, the\nasserted “thousands of victims” cannot be meaningfully tested or challenged.\nWhat should be an evidentiary determination is instead converted into an\nunverified narrative assertion, yet it directly drives loss calculation, restitution,\nand enhancements under U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(b)(2).\nThird, procedural suppression. My early challenges to these deficiencies\nwere restricted from meaningful consideration due to vexatious\ndesignation and filing limitations, preventing these issues from entering\nthe formal record and allowing continued reliance on unverified victim\ncounts at sentencing.\n\nUnder Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B), the Court is required to rule on any\ndisputed portion of the presentence report or other controversial matter, or\ndetermine that a ruling is unnecessary because the matter will not affect\nsentencing. Here, the number, identity, and methodology of the alleged “victim\npool” are actively disputed and directly affect loss calculation and guideline\nenhancements. Absent resolution of these disputes, reliance on such assertions\nat sentencing would be procedurally improper.\n\nAlso, Sentencing determinations must be supported by evidence bearing\nsufficient indicia of reliability. The Government’s reliance on an undefined and\nundisclosed victim population, without methodology or verification, fails to meet\nthis standard.\nTaken together, the Government’s position is internally inconsistent. It asserts\nthat the number of victims is so large as to render restitution impracticable,\nwhile simultaneously relying on that same undefined population to support\nsentencing enhancements. Such a position underscores the absence of a\nreliable evidentiary foundation. These conditions render the sentencing record\nstructurally unreliable. The Government’s reliance on an undefined victim\npopulation—combined with the absence of any disclosed methodology and the\nprocedural suppression of challenges—transforms a critical sentencing input into\nRESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 4 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 4 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 4 of 12\n\n---\n\nan untested assertion with dispositive effect.\n\nThe combination of unresolved factual disputes and the absence of reliable\nevidentiary foundations effectively deprives affected participants of a meaningful\nopportunity to challenge the factual basis of sentencing, raising serious Due\nProcess concerns.\nHad these issues been properly addressed when raised, the definition,\ncomposition, and quantification of victims could have been meaningfully\ntested, and the current narrative could not lawfully influence sentencing.\n\nVI. Structural Risks from Alliance Interference in Sentencing:\nEarly Warnings Suppressed by Vexatious Labeling\nAccording to my victim’s motion SDNY Dkt. 679, I specifically mentioned that\n“These suspicious participants who appeared in court in the nature of agreements, forms,\nregistrations, and agents can only happen under the conspiracy of the criminal Guo Wengui or\nhis Himalaya Alliance Himalaya Farm.” Combined with details in Section III, I\npreviously warned that the Alliance and affiliated “Farms” were actively interfering\nwith the formation of the evidentiary record, including through coordinated\nsubmissions and channeling. These warnings were not speculative—they are\ncorroborated by independent petitioners in related Second Circuit filings\n(25-2726 Dkts. 34, 35, 40, 41; 25-3046 Dkt. 27).\nBy labeling my filings as vexatious and imposing pre-filing restrictions, the Court\nprevented meaningful review of these risks. As a result, the same structural\ndefects—identity overlap, coordinated submissions, and evidentiary\ncontamination—now appear in the sentencing record.\nThis is evident in the Government’s reliance on Alliance-linked materials (SDNY\nDkt. 833, pp. 27, 67), including statements attributed to NFSC current secretary\nQingTeng and other NFSC-affiliated individuals. Yet Qingteng and spokesperson\nAva Chan have also been registered as victims in related proceedings — Co-\ndefendant Yvett Wang’s sentencing hearing —  while simultaneously acting as\norganizational figures and sources of accusatory evidence. This unresolved\nidentity overlap creates a structural risk of misattribution, where third-party\nconduct may be attributed to the defendant without a reliable evidentiary basis.\nThe Government’s reliance on victim-sourced statements to establish\nRESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 5 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 5 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 5 of 12\n\n---\n\ncontinued criminal conduct, without resolving identity overlap, attribution,\nor reliability, risks converting an unverified and potentially contaminated\nnarrative into a determinative sentencing factor.\n\nMoreover, as detailed in Second Circuit Case No. 25‑ 2726, Dkt. 40, defense\ncounsel repeatedly relied on submissions from NFSC Alliance–related groups\nsupporting the defendant, which, if unexamined, pose a significant risk of\ndistorting the sentencing process and further compromising the integrity of the\nrecord.\nIn short, the Court’s vexatious designation and pre-filing restrictions directly\nprevented timely review and correction of structural risks arising from Alliance-\nlinked interference. Had my filings not been suppressed, the procedural and\nevidentiary deficiencies associated with identity overlap, coordinated\nsubmissions, and organizational entanglement could have been addressed\nbefore sentencing.\nVII. Judicial Bias Bearing on Sentencing and Risk to Record\nIntegrity\n\nThe evidence of judicial bias is not limited to my experience alone. My CVRA\nfilings were blocked from docketing, while similar petitions represented by\ncounsel were immediately accepted, and the Court has now proposed a Special\nMaster to manage §853 petitions—demonstrating differential treatment.\nIndependent filings, including Ryan Bai’s Expanded Supplemental Mandamus\nPetition (25‑ 2726, Dkts. 26, 29) and SDNY Dkt. 765, further show that pro se\nfilers raising procedural concerns risk exposure of their personal information, a\npattern confirmed in Ryan’s submissions (see SDNY Dkt. 732) and never\nremedied by the Court. Together, these instances reflect a systemic,\nverifiable pattern of selective enforcement and coercive treatment of pro se\nparticipants.\n\nVIII. Chilling Effect on Potential Participants and Further\nRecord Integrity Concerns\n\nRecent filings in the Second Circuit, as well as observable developments within\nthe broader public community, further indicate that the procedural framework\nRESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 6 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 6 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 6 of 12\n\n---\n\nimposed by SDNY Order 596 has extended beyond the Court itself and has been\ninvoked by third parties in ways that may discourage participation in the judicial\nprocess.\nAs reflected in Ryan Bai’s filings in Second Circuit Case No. 25-2726 (including\nDkt. 35), pro se participants have reported experiencing pressure, threats of\nexposure of personal identity, and discouragement from submitting independent\nfilings or otherwise engaging with the Court. Similar circumstances have been\nexperienced by the undersigned.\nIn particular, individuals associated with organized community groups have, in\ncertain instances, cited SDNY Order 596 as a basis to discourage or restrict\nmembers from submitting filings, participating in proceedings, or asserting\nindependent legal positions. These developments, whether intended or not, may\ncontribute to a broader chilling effect on participation by similarly situated\nindividuals.\n\nAccordingly, unless Order 596 is reviewed and its effects addressed,\nproceeding to sentencing risks further entrenching a record that has been\nshaped not only by procedural restrictions within the Court, but also by\ntheir downstream impact on participation outside the Court.\n\nIX. Undermining of Personal Dignity Through Misapplied\nVexatious Designation\nFollowing the issuance of SDNY Order 596, the vexatious designation has been\nreferenced in public forums and online communities associated with the investor\npopulation, resulting in criticism, discouragement, and diminished willingness to\nengage in independent legal participation. In some instances, it has been cited to\nquestion or discourage pro se filings.\nThese effects extend beyond reputational concerns and bear on the\nprotections of fairness and dignity recognized under the Crime Victims’\nRights Act. Once reflected in public discourse and participation dynamics,\nsuch effects are not readily remediable after sentencing.\n\nX. Reasons for Emergency Stay\nRESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 7 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 7 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 7 of 12\n\n---\n\nLikelihood of Success on the Merits\nThere is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. As set forth in the\npending mandamus petition, SDNY Order 596 was issued on demonstrably false\nfactual premises and imposed filing restrictions without the procedural\nsafeguards required under Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 1998). The\norder further operated to coerce me into assuming a procedural status I had\nrepeatedly disclaimed, and that coerced status was subsequently embedded in\nthe official record without cure or clarification.\nIn addition, unresolved procedural defects relating to the use of the Geyer-\nrepresented Hex Petition—despite repeated objections on the record—directly\nbear on core sentencing considerations, including the number of victims and\nthe scope of forfeiture. The reliance on such contested material, without\naddressing its procedural legitimacy, further underscores the substantial\nlikelihood that mandamus relief is warranted to protect the integrity of the\nproceedings.\nIrreparable Harm\nAbsent a stay, my statutory right under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act to be\nreasonably heard at sentencing will be effectively nullified, as that right can\nonly be meaningfully exercised before sentencing occurs. Under the Crime\nVictims’ Rights Act, timely participation is essential. Even though sentencing is\nimminent, once it occurs, the errors arising from the Court’s vexatious\ndesignation and pre-filing review—wrongly labeling me as vexatious, subjecting\nmy filings to restrictive pre-screening, and suppressing my procedural\nobjections—will be permanently embedded in the sentencing record. This will\neffectively lock in the record with procedural distortions and prevent my concerns\nfrom being meaningfully heard.\n\nAlso, absent a stay, sentencing would proceed on a record shaped by\ndemonstrably false factual premises, coercive procedural conditions, and\nunresolved restrictions on participation.\n\nIf my pending mandamus is not addressed prior to sentencing, the procedural\ndefects I raised regarding the Geyer-related submissions will be effectively\nRESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 8 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 8 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 8 of 12\n\n---\n\nnullified. Because of the vexatious designation and pre-filing restrictions imposed\non my filings, my objections to these submissions would carry little to no weight\nduring the sentencing hearing. As a result, the inclusion of the Geyer-related\nmaterials—despite their procedural deficiencies—would result in a materially\ninaccurate calculation of victim count and loss under the Sentencing\nGuidelines, thereby improperly increasing offense level enhancements and\nthe scope of restitution. This creates an irreparable harm, as once sentencing\noccurs, these errors will be permanently embedded in the record, and my\nstatutory rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act cannot be meaningfully\nvindicated afterward.\n\nThe harm is further compounded by the Court’s vexatious designation under\nOrder 596, which has exposed me to public criticism, ridicule and reputational\ndisparagement, undermining the statutory guarantee that victims be treated with\nfairness and dignity. These combined effects constitute harm that is immediate,\nstructural, and irreversible.\n\nCritically, absent a stay, a disputed and untested premise regarding victim\nidentification will be treated as an established sentencing fact, without ever\nhaving been subjected to adversarial testing or judicial determination as I\ndetailed in section V above. The Government has consistently relied on an\nundefined and unverified “thousands of victims” figure, without ever disclosing a\nmethodology or evidentiary basis. My early and repeated challenges to this\ndeficiency were not meaningfully addressed due to procedural restrictions.\nIf sentencing proceeds now, the absence of adjudication on these challenges will\neffectively convert this unverified assertion into an accepted factual foundation\nfor sentencing, this will directly affect victim count, loss calculation, restitution,\nand enhancements under the Sentencing Guidelines, resulting in a sentencing\ndetermination based on unverified and non-reviewable factual predicates.\n\nAlso absent a stay, unresolved Alliance-related interference—including\nidentity overlap and evidentiary contamination—will be converted from a\ncontested issue into an accepted sentencing premise.\n\nIn sum, proceeding to sentencing on an unresolved and procedurally\nconstrained record risks impairing meaningful appellate review. Once\nsentencing occurs, the factual foundation will be fixed without prior adjudication\nRESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 9 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 9 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 9 of 12\n\n---\n\nof disputed issues, effectively converting contested and untested assertions into\nbinding findings for purposes of appeal. This creates a structural barrier to\nappellate review that cannot be remedied post hoc, and therefore constitutes\nirreparable harm.\nBalance of Equities\nThe balance of equities strongly favors a stay. Granting a temporary stay would\nimpose only a limited and manageable delay in sentencing. There is no indication\nthat such a delay would prejudice the Government, the defendant, or the Court in\nany meaningful way.\nBy contrast, denying a stay would result in substantial and irreversible harm. As\nexplained above, sentencing would proceed on a record shaped by demonstrably\nfalse factual premises, coercive procedural conditions, and unresolved\nrestrictions on participation. Once sentencing occurs, these distortions will be\nembedded in the official record and cannot be meaningfully corrected through\npost-judgment review.\nMoreover, the harm is not limited to record integrity. The denial of a stay would\neffectively extinguish my ability to exercise statutory rights under the Crime\nVictims’ Rights Act at the only time they are meaningful—before sentencing.\nIn these circumstances, where the harm to the movant is severe and irreparable,\nand the burden on the opposing parties is minimal, the balance of equities\ndecisively favors maintaining the status quo through a temporary stay.\nPublic Interest\n● The public interest strongly favors a stay. This case implicates not only the\nstatutory rights guaranteed under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, which\nrequire meaningful participation before sentencing, but also broader\nconcerns regarding the integrity and public perception of the judicial\nprocess.\n\n● Here, a district court order issued on demonstrably false factual premises\nwas used to label a pro se participant as vexatious, impose pre-filing\nrestrictions, and effectively suppress procedural objections, moreover, it\nwas also inconsistent with Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208 (2d Cir.\nRESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 10 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 10 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 10 of 12\n\n---\n\n1998). If left uncorrected prior to sentencing, these judicially created\ndistortions risk becoming embedded in the official record and treated as\nlegitimate background. Importantly, allowing sentencing to proceed\nwithout correction could establish a precedent. Other district courts\nor parties may seek to replicate the use of orders like 596 to suppress\npro se filings or chill individuals from raising procedural objections,\nthereby extending the harmful effect beyond this case. Such\nreplication would undermine public confidence in the fairness,\nneutrality, and integrity of judicial proceedings across the federal\nsystem.\n\n● Similarly, this case risks also establishing a precedent under which\nprocedural constraints can operate to insulate unverified and non-\nreviewable victim figures from challenge, allowing them to serve as\nthe baseline for sentencing determinations without adversarial\ntesting or judicial validation.\n\n● The public interest is implicated by a replicable framework in which\nunresolved identity overlap is used to support sentencing. Where\nindividuals simultaneously occupy the roles of victim, participant, and\nevidentiary source, reliance on such materials without resolving attribution\nand reliability creates a structurally compromised record. If permitted here,\nthis approach may be adopted in future cases, effectively normalizing the\nuse of unverified and internally conflicted evidence in sentencing.\n\n● The public interest is further implicated by the need to ensure judicial\nimpartiality. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), recusal is required where a\nreasonable observer would question the court’s neutrality. As discussed in\nmy pending mandamus petition, the record demonstrates reliance on\ndemonstrably false factual premises, coercive procedural measures, and a\npattern of selective enforcement affecting pro se participants. The\nmandamus petition specifically addresses the necessity of judicial\nrecusal under these circumstances. Failure to resolve these recusal\nconcerns prior to sentencing risks undermining public confidence in\nthe judiciary itself.\nSuch circumstances do not merely affect an individual litigant—they undermine\npublic confidence in the fairness, accuracy, and neutrality of judicial\nRESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 11 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 11 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 11 of 12\n\n---\n\nproceedings. The appearance that a court may rely on inaccurate factual\nassumptions to restrict participation, while allowing those consequences to shape\nthe sentencing record, raises serious concerns about the integrity of the\nadjudicative process itself.\nAllowing sentencing to proceed without resolving these issues would not only\naffect the parties involved, but would also signal that questions of judicial\nimpartiality may go unexamined at critical stages of criminal proceedings—\nthereby eroding trust in the fairness and legitimacy of the judicial process.\n\nXI. Relief requested\n\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 before this Court is fully adjudicated.\n\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,\nChunk Chyi (real name: Chunhong Qi)\n\nApril 15, 2026\nRESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 12 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 12 of 12\nCase: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 12 of 12\n\n---\n\nCertificate of Service\nIn re: Chunk Chyi, Petitioner\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit\nCase No: 26-077\nSDNY Case: United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\nI, Chunk Chyi, hereby certify as follows:\n\nOn April 15, 2026, I submitted true and correct copy of the following document:\nwas served on the following party\n\nEMERGENCY MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY STAY OF\nSENTENCING PENDING RESOLUTION OF PETITION FOR\nWRIT OF MANDAMUS\n\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,\nChunk Chyi\n\nRESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.3, Page 1 of 1\nRESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.3, Page 1 of 1\nRESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.3, Page 1 of 1","body_zh":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":4230,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-07-07 13:44:16"}