---
type: court_doc
id: "court_2cir_25-2726_dkt_43"
court: "2Cir"
case_no: ""
doc_number: null
doc_type: "DOC"
filed_date: null
lang: "zh"
url: "https://mubeitech.com/court/court_2cir_25-2726_dkt_43"
json_url: "https://mubeitech.com/api/court/court_2cir_25-2726_dkt_43"
---
# 2Cir ECF 25-2726_dkt_43

**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。**


> 原始法庭文件为英文；下方为英文全文，顶部为中文摘要。

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