郭文贵上诉 · 2Cir ECF 25-2726_dkt_43

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500 MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT Docket Number(s): _2_ 5_-_2_7_2_6 ___________ _ Motion for: EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY STAY OF SENTENCING PENDING RESOLUTION OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought: Caption fuse short title) Please see in the motion In re:Ranyue Bai MOVING PARTY: Ryan Bai OPPOSING PARTY: United States District Court. Southern District of New York ---------------- 0 PI a inti ff 0AppeUant/Petitioner Ooefendam 0AppeUee/Respondent MOVING ATTORNEY: Ryan Bai OPPOSING ATTORNEY: Nathan Rehn -'--------------- ----------------- [name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail] United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor, New York, NY 10278 (212) 637-2354 Court- Judge/ Agency appealed from: United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Hon. Analisa Torres, U.S. District Judge Please check appropriate boxes: Has movant notifiedÒposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1): 0Yes LJ.No(explain):. _________ _ Opposing counsel's position on motion: Ounopposed Oopposed0,Don't Know Does oppÓ counsel intendÔile a response: LJYes 0No ÕDon'tKnow FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND INJUCTIONS PENDING APPEAL: Has this request for relief been made below? Has tllis relief been previously sought in tllis court? Requested return date and explanation of emergency: BYes 0.No Yes 0No The sentencing is scheduled on April 27, 2026, therefore respongding before this date will prevent irreparable harm. Is oral argument on motion requested? Dy es 0No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted) Has argument date of appeal been set? 0Yes0No If yes, enter date:. ______________________ _ Signature of Moving Attorney: __ l?L_=----z-----Date: April 15, 2026 rf'r''-" Service by: OcM/ECF Oother [Attach proof of service] Form T-1080 (rev.12-13) Case: 25-2726, 04/20/2026, DktEntry: 43.1, Page 1 of 9

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Victim in United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-1 18-1 (AT) Petitioner. SDNY Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT Second Circuit No. 25-2726 EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY STAY OF SENTENCING PENDING RESOLUTION OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS I, Ryan Bai, a victim under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, respectfully petition this Honorable Court to issue a temporary stay of the sentencing proceedings, currently scheduled for April 27, 2026, before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT), pending full adjudication of my renewed petition for a writ of mandamus currently before this Court. (25-2726 Dkts. 38 redacted, 39 sealed)

I. Background

● My original Mandamus petition was docketed on October 28, 2025 by this Court, sought relief for the Second Circuit directing the District Court to upload my suppressed motions (25-2726 Dkt. 38, Exhibits A, B) and to direct the District Court to adjudicate the rule60(d) motion, which I filed in SDNY Dkt. 733.

● On the same day, the district court docketed my original mandamus as SDNY Dkt. 765 and publicly disclosed my original mandamus filing, which contained my full personally identifiable information (“PII”). This disclosure occurred without any directive from the Second Circuit and without any apparent legal basis, and appears to have been undertaken as an independent action by the district court in the exercise of its own discretion.

Case: 25-2726, 04/20/2026, DktEntry: 43.1, Page 2 of 9

---

● I promptly filed emergency motions in both the Second Circuit and the district court seeking to seal my original mandamus (25-2726 Dkt. 38, Exhibit E) filing and to replace it with a redacted version. I respectfully acknowledge and appreciate that the Second Circuit granted my motion on November 18, 2025, thereby protecting my personal identifying information. In contrast, despite the passage of several months, the district court docket continues to reflect the unredacted version of my filing, leaving my personally identifiable information publicly exposed in SDNY Dkt. 765. This continued disclosure has resulted in ongoing harm, including online harassment and misuse of my identity (see 25-2726 Dkt. 35), and raises serious concerns regarding the protection of victim-related information under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771.

● Following the public disclosure of my personally identifiable information (“PII”) in connection with my original mandamus filing, I suffered subsequent harm. In response, I filed an expanded mandamus petition (25-2726 Dkt. 38, Exhibit D) in the Second Circuit seeking broader relief to address the consequences of that disclosure. However, due to the procedural complexity of appellate practice and my lack of familiarity with Second Circuit filing requirements at the time, the expanded mandamus petition was not timely cured. As a result, the Second Circuit issued its decision on my original mandamus petition on November 26, 2025, before the expanded mandamus filing had been properly cured and considered.

● Because my expanded mandamus petition was filed after the Court’s disposition of the original mandamus, I subsequently submitted a Motion for Leave to Cure the expanded mandamus petition on December 22, 2025 (Dkts. 26, 27), seeking permission to correct procedural deficiencies and properly present the requested relief. On January 15, 2026, this Court denied the motion for leave.

● On January 21, 2026, the Second Circuit issued the mandate with respect to my original mandamus petition. In its order issued on November 26, 2025, the Court expressly stated that the denial was “without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails to docket the submissions within a reasonable time.” However, after approximately four months, the district Case: 25-2726, 04/20/2026, DktEntry: 43.1, Page 3 of 9

---

court had still not docketed my CVRA-related submissions. Accordingly, on March 16, 2026, I filed a motion in the Second Circuit to recall the mandate and to renew my petition for a writ of mandamus.

II. Reason for stay

Likelihood of Success:

I am likely to succeed on the merits of my renewed petition for a writ of mandamus because the legal and procedural basis for my requested relief is clear.

First, the Second Circuit explicitly stated that I could renew my mandamus petition “without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails to docket the submissions within a reasonable time.” More than four months have now passed without the District Court docketing my CVRA-related submissions, directly satisfying the condition contemplated by the Second Circuit. Importantly, Exhibit A contains my objections related to the sentencing and forfeiture of funds; if these submissions are not docketed before the sentencing hearing, the sentencing record will be incomplete and my objections will not be considered. Moreover, the District Court’s decision to docket only my original mandamus, without separately docketing the suppressed CVRA and Expanded Mandamus, effectively bypasses the Court’s obligation to adjudicate substantive legal issues contained in those filings. These motions raise concrete legal questions, including objections related to sentencing and forfeiture, which the District Court must address. By failing to docket them separately, the Court has deprived me of the opportunity for these legal issues to be considered before the sentencing hearing, directly impacting the completeness and integrity of the record. This procedural omission further demonstrates the necessity and substantial merit of my renewed mandamus petition.

Second, my expanded mandamus filed in response to the disclosure of my personally identifiable information, was a legitimate attempt to cure procedural defects and secure comprehensive relief. Although this Court denied my motion for leave to cure the expanded mandamus, that does not undermine my underlying right to have the expanded mandamus considered by the District Case: 25-2726, 04/20/2026, DktEntry: 43.1, Page 4 of 9

---

Court. Doing so is necessary to maintain consistency in the docket, preserve the integrity of the appellate record, and prevent selective docketing.

Third, the Second Circuit has already recognized the legal validity of my claims by granting relief to protect my personally identifiable information. In contrast, the District Court has failed to redact the publicly docketed version of my original mandamus (SDNY Dkt. 765), leaving my full PII exposed for several months and did not take any action to correct, causing ongoing harm. This disparity demonstrates that my petition is not frivolous and has substantial legal merit, and it underscores the need for this Court to intervene to ensure that my renewed mandamus is properly considered. Moreover, this pattern is consistent with prior actions by the District Court that have treated the disclosure of sensitive information inconsistently. In SDNY Dkts. 51 and 733, the District Court recognized the risks of publicly exposing private information, including in connection with filings related to Trustee Luc A. Despin, and relied on such disclosures to support legal findings concerning obstruction of justice and pretrial release. Yet, in my case, the District Court publicly docketed my unredacted original mandamus as Dkt. 765—containing my home address and other personally identifiable information—without any directive or legal basis, despite previously acknowledging similar privacy risks and failing to correct. This inconsistent treatment undermines the integrity of the record and creates procedural ambiguity.

Taken together, these facts show that I have a strong likelihood of success on the merits of my renewed mandamus petition.

Irreparable Harm: First, as discussed above, my Exhibit A objections relate directly to the sentencing and forfeiture of funds. If these submissions are not docketed and considered before the sentencing hearing, the Court will proceed without a complete record of my legally relevant filings. Once the sentencing hearing occurs, there is no mechanism to retroactively ensure that these objections are incorporated into the record or given effect, and as a result, they may not be considered in calculating victim-related losses or the forfeiture fund.

Case: 25-2726, 04/20/2026, DktEntry: 43.1, Page 5 of 9

---

Second, the District Court’s continued public docketing of my original, unredacted mandamus (SDNY Dkt. 765) exposes my personally identifiable information, including my home address and employment details. This ongoing disclosure has already caused online harassment and targeted misuse of my identity(25-2726 Dkt. 35), and it continues to pose a real risk of further harm. Such privacy violations constitute irreparable harm because they cannot be fully remedied by later sealing or redaction; once PII is public, the exposure cannot be undone, and the resulting consequences are persistent and cumulative. Third, the District Court’s selective docketing—uploading my original mandamus but failing to separately docket the suppressed CVRA and Expanded Mandamus motions—creates a procedural environment that undermines the integrity of the record and the consistency of judicial review. This is particularly concerning given the District Court’s prior reliance on public disclosures of sensitive information in related matters, such as filings involving Trustee Luc A. Despin (SDNY Dkts. 51 and 733). In those cases, the District Court explicitly acknowledged the risks of publicly exposing private information and relied on such disclosures to support legal findings regarding obstruction of justice and pretrial release. By contrast, the District Court has publicly docketed my unredacted mandamus without any directive or legal basis, despite previously recognizing similar privacy risks in the Luc-related filings. This inconsistent treatment not only perpetuates exposure of my PII but also compromises the integrity and completeness of the record for sentencing. If not corrected before the hearing, the District Court would be forced to make critical sentencing decisions based on an incomplete and procedurally skewed record, which constitutes irreparable harm to both my rights and the judicial process. Taken together, the irreparable harm to my personal privacy, the integrity of the sentencing record—including the precedent set by Luc-related disclosures—and the potential impact on the consideration of victim-related losses and the forfeiture fund demonstrates the necessity of granting a temporary stay pending resolution of my renewed mandamus petition. Balance of Equities:

Granting a temporary stay serves to protect my fundamental rights under the CVRA, preserve the integrity of the appellate and district court records, and ensure that the sentencing court has a complete and accurate record before Case: 25-2726, 04/20/2026, DktEntry: 43.1, Page 6 of 9

---

proceeding. In contrast, a short delay in the sentencing hearing will cause minimal disruption to the proceedings and will not prejudice the Government or the defendant. By contrast, failing to stay the proceedings risks irreparable harm to my personal privacy, compromises the completeness of the sentencing record—including the consideration of objections relating to forfeiture, victim losses, and the funds at issue—and may entrench selective or inconsistent docketing practices, as evidenced by prior disclosures such as those involving Trustee Luc A. Despin. Accordingly, the balance of equities strongly favors granting a temporary stay.

Public Interest:

Granting a temporary stay is strongly in the public interest because it implicates systemic concerns regarding the integrity of judicial proceedings, the protection of victim rights, and the consistent application of procedural safeguards across federal courts. If the sentencing proceeds without correcting the issues presented here, it risks creating a harmful precedent in several critical respects.

First, it may signal that district courts may publicly disclose sensitive personally identifiable information without timely correction, even where such disclosure has already been recognized as improper, thereby undermining confidence in the judiciary’s ability to safeguard privacy—particularly for victims participating in legal proceedings.

Second, it may establish a precedent that courts may selectively docket or decline to docket CVRA-related submissions prior to sentencing, effectively depriving victims of their statutory right to be heard at a critical stage of the proceedings. Such a practice would weaken the enforceability of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and diminish meaningful victim participation.

Third, it risks endorsing inconsistent and selective docketing practices with respect to mandamus-related filings, where certain submissions are docketed while others raising substantive legal issues are not, thereby undermining the integrity and completeness of the record and interfering with meaningful appellate review.

Fourth, it may create a particularly troubling procedural precedent whereby Case: 25-2726, 04/20/2026, DktEntry: 43.1, Page 7 of 9

---

a district court may bypass its obligation to docket and adjudicate properly submitted motions by instead docketing an appellate mandamus filing that merely references those motions. Such a practice would allow courts to avoid addressing substantive legal issues—especially those requiring judicial determination—while creating the appearance that the matters have been formally presented on the record. This form of procedural substitution undermines both the function of the district court and the supervisory role of the appellate court. These concerns are not limited to this case. If left unaddressed, they may influence broader judicial practice by implicitly permitting selective docketing, inconsistent privacy protections, procedural bypass mechanisms, and incomplete records at the sentencing stage—one of the most critical phases of a criminal proceeding. Accordingly, the public interest strongly favors a temporary stay to ensure that the record is complete, consistent, and reliable before sentencing proceeds, and to prevent the establishment of practices that could undermine the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings in future cases. III. Relief requested I respectfully request that the Second Circuit issue an immediate stay of all sentencing proceedings in the United States District Court for the case United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23‑ CR‑ 118‑ 1 (AT) until my pending mandamus petition (25-2726 Dkts. 38, 39) before this Court is fully adjudicated. I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Bai April 15, 2026 Case: 25-2726, 04/20/2026, DktEntry: 43.1, Page 8 of 9

---

Certificate of Service In re: Ryan Bai, Petitioner United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Case No: 25-2726 SDNY Case: United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT) I, Ryan Bai, hereby certify as follows:

On April 15, 2026, I submitted true and correct copy of the following documents: were served on the following party

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY STAY OF SENTENCING PENDING RESOLUTION OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Nathan Rehn United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor New York, NY 10278 Executed on April 15, 2026. Respectfully submitted, Ryan Bai

Case: 25-2726, 04/20/2026, DktEntry: 43.1, Page 9 of 9