郭文贵上诉 · 2Cir ECF 26-077_emergency_stay

Form T-1080 (rev 12-13) 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): ________________________________________ _______________Caption [use short title]_____________________ Motion for: ______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought: ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ MOVING PARTY:_______________________________________ OPPOSING PARTY:____________________________________________ ___Plaintiff ___Defendant ___Appellant/Petitioner ___Appellee/Respondent MOVING ATTORNEY:___________________________________ OPPOSING ATTORNEY:________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ Court- Judge/ Agency appealed from: _________________________________________________________________________________________ Please check appropriate boxes: FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND INJUCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:

Is oral argument on motion requested? ___Yes ___No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted) Has argument date of appeal been set? ___ Yes ___No If yes, enter date:_______________________________________________________ Signature of Moving Attorney: _________________________________ Date:__________________ Service by: ___CM/ECF ___Other [Attach proof of service] [name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail] Has this request for relief been made below? ___Yes ___No Has this relief been previously sought in this court? ___Yes ___No Requested return date and explanation of emergency: ________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1): ___Yes ___No (explain):__________________________

_______________________________________________ Opposing counsel’s position on motion: ___Unopposed ___Opposed ___Don’t Know

Does opposing counsel intend to file a response: ___Yes ___No ___Don’t Know 26-077 EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY STAY OF SENTENCING PENDING RESOLUTION OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Please see in the motion Chunk Chyi (real name: Chunhong Qi) United States District Court, Southern District of New York Chunk Chyi (real name: Chunhong Qi) Nathan Rehn 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor, New York, NY 10278 (212)-637-2354 United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Hon. Analisa Torres, U.S. District Judge Before Sentencing April 27, 2026, to prevent irreparable harm April 15, 2026 In Re: Chunk Chyi Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.1, Page 1 of 1 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.1, Page 1 of 1

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT In re: Chunk Chyi SDNY Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT Second Circuit No. 26-077 EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY STAY OF SENTENCING PENDING RESOLUTION OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS I, Chunk Chyi, appearing pro se, respectfully move this Court to stay the sentencing scheduled in SDNY Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT on April 27, 2026, pending the resolution of my Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Second Circuit Case No. 26-077.

Absent a stay, sentencing will proceed on a materially unreliable record, including unresolved procedural defects, coercive participation constraints, and contested evidentiary submissions—creating a serious risk that unverified and non-reviewable victim determinations will improperly influence the calculation of loss, restitution, and guideline enhancements, and permanently entrench structural errors affecting my statutory rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and the integrity of the proceedings. I. Background and New Development My Mandamus petition was docketed by this Court on January 14, 2026, it was also uploaded to the District Court’s docket as Dkt. 788. During this period, the issues I raised in my district court filings have not only gone unaddressed, but similar concerns have subsequently been validated by other pro se mandamus petitions filed in the Second Circuit. Some of the procedural deficiencies I initially identified have now escalated into more serious and systemic problems that directly bear on sentencing, highlighting the continuing risk of irreparable harm to the integrity of the record and to my statutory rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. RESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 1 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 1 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 1 of 12

---

II. Structural Overview of Interrelated Procedural Issues

The issues presented here do not arise in isolation. Rather, they reflect interrelated conditions that collectively shape the formation of the sentencing record. Formal restrictions within the Court—including pre-filing limitations and vexatious designations—operate alongside external community-based pressures and centralized channels through which information is collected and transmitted. Together, these conditions may limit both the scope of participation and the independence of evidentiary submissions. As a result, the record before the Court risks reflecting a filtered or constrained subset of available information, rather than a fully independent evidentiary landscape. III. Use of the Geyer-Represented Hex Petition in Sentencing Submission (SDNY, Dkt 822) Without Addressing Prior Procedural Warnings

As reflected in SDNY Docket Nos. 507, 508, 517, 519, 554, 555, and 679, I repeatedly raised concerns regarding the procedural legitimacy of Bradford L. Geyer’s purported representation, which I identified as arising from a centralized and coordinated channel associated with the NFSC Alliance. In Dkt. 508, I submitted documentary evidence, including emails requesting termination of any alleged representation relationship with Mr. Geyer. In Dkt. 519, I further moved to remove his asserted third-party status from the proceedings. These concerns were first raised in May 2025, but neither defense counsel nor the Government addressed them. Instead, my filings were met with restrictive measures, including vexatious labeling and pre-filing screening. Notwithstanding these unresolved objections, defense counsel subsequently relied on the Geyer-related Hex Petition in sentencing submissions (SDNY Dkt. 822) without clarifying or curing the procedural deficiencies I had highlighted. This selective reliance, despite the record of objections, reliance on procedurally contested submissions for sentencing purposes risks inflating both victim counts and loss amounts, thereby directly distorting the advisory guideline range.

Importantly, these concerns are corroborated by independent filings from other petitioners. For example, in Second Circuit Case No. 25‑ 2726, Ryan Bai RESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 2 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 2 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 2 of 12

---

identified related issues in Docket Nos. 34, 35, and 40, including the procedural deficiencies arising from reliance on the Geyer-related submission as sentencing support. This independent corroboration underscores that the problems are systemic rather than isolated, affecting multiple participants and highlighting structural risks to the accuracy and fairness of the record.

IV. Judicial Reliance on False Factual Premises Resulting in Vexatious Designation, Coerced Procedural Status, and Its Entrenchment in the Record

According to my original mandamus, I highlight that SDNY Order 596 was issued based on demonstrably false factual premises (Exhibit F), was inconsistent with Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208 (2d Cir. 1998), and further resulted in my being improperly labeled as vexatious and subjected to restrictive pre- filing screening. Under the coercive procedural regime imposed by the Court, I was compelled to assume a procedural standing that I had repeatedly disclaimed and had no desire to exercise. My compelled Motion SDNY Dkt. 679, which fully explains the circumstances necessitating this forced assumption of standing, has already been docketed and embedded in the official record, raising serious concerns regarding the integrity of the sentencing record. V. Early Warning of Prosecution Victim Transparency Issues Corroborated by Later Sentencing Submissions I raised concerns regarding the transparency of the prosecution’s handling of victim information in my early filings (SDNY Dkts. 510, 513, 522, 555, 557). However, in SDNY Dkt. 822, defense counsel relies on the Geyer-related Hex Petition—despite its unresolved procedural defects—as support for excluding certain individuals from victim status. At the same time, the Government continues to assert that all participants constitute victims, relying on an undefined and unverified “thousands of victims” figure (SDNY Dkt. 833, p. 60). My repeated early warnings regarding the lack of transparency and methodology in victim identification were ignored by both the parties and the Court. This presents a structural defect bearing directly on sentencing: RESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 3 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 3 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 3 of 12

---

First, a methodology gap. The Government has invoked a large but undefined victim population across multiple stages, without disclosing any verifiable methodology—no explanation of validation criteria, duplication controls, or evidentiary standards for determining victim status. Second, a non-reviewable figure. Because no methodology is disclosed, the asserted “thousands of victims” cannot be meaningfully tested or challenged. What should be an evidentiary determination is instead converted into an unverified narrative assertion, yet it directly drives loss calculation, restitution, and enhancements under U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(b)(2). Third, procedural suppression. My early challenges to these deficiencies were restricted from meaningful consideration due to vexatious designation and filing limitations, preventing these issues from entering the formal record and allowing continued reliance on unverified victim counts at sentencing.

Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B), the Court is required to rule on any disputed portion of the presentence report or other controversial matter, or determine that a ruling is unnecessary because the matter will not affect sentencing. Here, the number, identity, and methodology of the alleged “victim pool” are actively disputed and directly affect loss calculation and guideline enhancements. Absent resolution of these disputes, reliance on such assertions at sentencing would be procedurally improper.

Also, Sentencing determinations must be supported by evidence bearing sufficient indicia of reliability. The Government’s reliance on an undefined and undisclosed victim population, without methodology or verification, fails to meet this standard. Taken together, the Government’s position is internally inconsistent. It asserts that the number of victims is so large as to render restitution impracticable, while simultaneously relying on that same undefined population to support sentencing enhancements. Such a position underscores the absence of a reliable evidentiary foundation. These conditions render the sentencing record structurally unreliable. The Government’s reliance on an undefined victim population—combined with the absence of any disclosed methodology and the procedural suppression of challenges—transforms a critical sentencing input into RESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 4 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 4 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 4 of 12

---

an untested assertion with dispositive effect.

The combination of unresolved factual disputes and the absence of reliable evidentiary foundations effectively deprives affected participants of a meaningful opportunity to challenge the factual basis of sentencing, raising serious Due Process concerns. Had these issues been properly addressed when raised, the definition, composition, and quantification of victims could have been meaningfully tested, and the current narrative could not lawfully influence sentencing.

VI. Structural Risks from Alliance Interference in Sentencing: Early Warnings Suppressed by Vexatious Labeling According to my victim’s motion SDNY Dkt. 679, I specifically mentioned that “These suspicious participants who appeared in court in the nature of agreements, forms, registrations, and agents can only happen under the conspiracy of the criminal Guo Wengui or his Himalaya Alliance Himalaya Farm.” Combined with details in Section III, I previously warned that the Alliance and affiliated “Farms” were actively interfering with the formation of the evidentiary record, including through coordinated submissions and channeling. These warnings were not speculative—they are corroborated by independent petitioners in related Second Circuit filings (25-2726 Dkts. 34, 35, 40, 41; 25-3046 Dkt. 27). By labeling my filings as vexatious and imposing pre-filing restrictions, the Court prevented meaningful review of these risks. As a result, the same structural defects—identity overlap, coordinated submissions, and evidentiary contamination—now appear in the sentencing record. This is evident in the Government’s reliance on Alliance-linked materials (SDNY Dkt. 833, pp. 27, 67), including statements attributed to NFSC current secretary QingTeng and other NFSC-affiliated individuals. Yet Qingteng and spokesperson Ava Chan have also been registered as victims in related proceedings — Co- defendant Yvett Wang’s sentencing hearing — while simultaneously acting as organizational figures and sources of accusatory evidence. This unresolved identity overlap creates a structural risk of misattribution, where third-party conduct may be attributed to the defendant without a reliable evidentiary basis. The Government’s reliance on victim-sourced statements to establish RESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 5 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 5 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 5 of 12

---

continued criminal conduct, without resolving identity overlap, attribution, or reliability, risks converting an unverified and potentially contaminated narrative into a determinative sentencing factor.

Moreover, as detailed in Second Circuit Case No. 25‑ 2726, Dkt. 40, defense counsel repeatedly relied on submissions from NFSC Alliance–related groups supporting the defendant, which, if unexamined, pose a significant risk of distorting the sentencing process and further compromising the integrity of the record. In short, the Court’s vexatious designation and pre-filing restrictions directly prevented timely review and correction of structural risks arising from Alliance- linked interference. Had my filings not been suppressed, the procedural and evidentiary deficiencies associated with identity overlap, coordinated submissions, and organizational entanglement could have been addressed before sentencing. VII. Judicial Bias Bearing on Sentencing and Risk to Record Integrity

The evidence of judicial bias is not limited to my experience alone. My CVRA filings were blocked from docketing, while similar petitions represented by counsel were immediately accepted, and the Court has now proposed a Special Master to manage §853 petitions—demonstrating differential treatment. Independent filings, including Ryan Bai’s Expanded Supplemental Mandamus Petition (25‑ 2726, Dkts. 26, 29) and SDNY Dkt. 765, further show that pro se filers raising procedural concerns risk exposure of their personal information, a pattern confirmed in Ryan’s submissions (see SDNY Dkt. 732) and never remedied by the Court. Together, these instances reflect a systemic, verifiable pattern of selective enforcement and coercive treatment of pro se participants.

VIII. Chilling Effect on Potential Participants and Further Record Integrity Concerns

Recent filings in the Second Circuit, as well as observable developments within the broader public community, further indicate that the procedural framework RESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 6 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 6 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 6 of 12

---

imposed by SDNY Order 596 has extended beyond the Court itself and has been invoked by third parties in ways that may discourage participation in the judicial process. As reflected in Ryan Bai’s filings in Second Circuit Case No. 25-2726 (including Dkt. 35), pro se participants have reported experiencing pressure, threats of exposure of personal identity, and discouragement from submitting independent filings or otherwise engaging with the Court. Similar circumstances have been experienced by the undersigned. In particular, individuals associated with organized community groups have, in certain instances, cited SDNY Order 596 as a basis to discourage or restrict members from submitting filings, participating in proceedings, or asserting independent legal positions. These developments, whether intended or not, may contribute to a broader chilling effect on participation by similarly situated individuals.

Accordingly, unless Order 596 is reviewed and its effects addressed, proceeding to sentencing risks further entrenching a record that has been shaped not only by procedural restrictions within the Court, but also by their downstream impact on participation outside the Court.

IX. Undermining of Personal Dignity Through Misapplied Vexatious Designation Following the issuance of SDNY Order 596, the vexatious designation has been referenced in public forums and online communities associated with the investor population, resulting in criticism, discouragement, and diminished willingness to engage in independent legal participation. In some instances, it has been cited to question or discourage pro se filings. These effects extend beyond reputational concerns and bear on the protections of fairness and dignity recognized under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Once reflected in public discourse and participation dynamics, such effects are not readily remediable after sentencing.

X. Reasons for Emergency Stay RESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 7 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 7 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 7 of 12

---

Likelihood of Success on the Merits There is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. As set forth in the pending mandamus petition, SDNY Order 596 was issued on demonstrably false factual premises and imposed filing restrictions without the procedural safeguards required under Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 1998). The order further operated to coerce me into assuming a procedural status I had repeatedly disclaimed, and that coerced status was subsequently embedded in the official record without cure or clarification. In addition, unresolved procedural defects relating to the use of the Geyer- represented Hex Petition—despite repeated objections on the record—directly bear on core sentencing considerations, including the number of victims and the scope of forfeiture. The reliance on such contested material, without addressing its procedural legitimacy, further underscores the substantial likelihood that mandamus relief is warranted to protect the integrity of the proceedings. Irreparable Harm Absent a stay, my statutory right under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act to be reasonably heard at sentencing will be effectively nullified, as that right can only be meaningfully exercised before sentencing occurs. Under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, timely participation is essential. Even though sentencing is imminent, once it occurs, the errors arising from the Court’s vexatious designation and pre-filing review—wrongly labeling me as vexatious, subjecting my filings to restrictive pre-screening, and suppressing my procedural objections—will be permanently embedded in the sentencing record. This will effectively lock in the record with procedural distortions and prevent my concerns from being meaningfully heard.

Also, absent a stay, sentencing would proceed on a record shaped by demonstrably false factual premises, coercive procedural conditions, and unresolved restrictions on participation.

If my pending mandamus is not addressed prior to sentencing, the procedural defects I raised regarding the Geyer-related submissions will be effectively RESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 8 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 8 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 8 of 12

---

nullified. Because of the vexatious designation and pre-filing restrictions imposed on my filings, my objections to these submissions would carry little to no weight during the sentencing hearing. As a result, the inclusion of the Geyer-related materials—despite their procedural deficiencies—would result in a materially inaccurate calculation of victim count and loss under the Sentencing Guidelines, thereby improperly increasing offense level enhancements and the scope of restitution. This creates an irreparable harm, as once sentencing occurs, these errors will be permanently embedded in the record, and my statutory rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act cannot be meaningfully vindicated afterward.

The harm is further compounded by the Court’s vexatious designation under Order 596, which has exposed me to public criticism, ridicule and reputational disparagement, undermining the statutory guarantee that victims be treated with fairness and dignity. These combined effects constitute harm that is immediate, structural, and irreversible.

Critically, absent a stay, a disputed and untested premise regarding victim identification will be treated as an established sentencing fact, without ever having been subjected to adversarial testing or judicial determination as I detailed in section V above. The Government has consistently relied on an undefined and unverified “thousands of victims” figure, without ever disclosing a methodology or evidentiary basis. My early and repeated challenges to this deficiency were not meaningfully addressed due to procedural restrictions. If sentencing proceeds now, the absence of adjudication on these challenges will effectively convert this unverified assertion into an accepted factual foundation for sentencing, this will directly affect victim count, loss calculation, restitution, and enhancements under the Sentencing Guidelines, resulting in a sentencing determination based on unverified and non-reviewable factual predicates.

Also absent a stay, unresolved Alliance-related interference—including identity overlap and evidentiary contamination—will be converted from a contested issue into an accepted sentencing premise.

In sum, proceeding to sentencing on an unresolved and procedurally constrained record risks impairing meaningful appellate review. Once sentencing occurs, the factual foundation will be fixed without prior adjudication RESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 9 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 9 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 9 of 12

---

of disputed issues, effectively converting contested and untested assertions into binding findings for purposes of appeal. This creates a structural barrier to appellate review that cannot be remedied post hoc, and therefore constitutes irreparable harm. Balance of Equities The balance of equities strongly favors a stay. Granting a temporary stay would impose only a limited and manageable delay in sentencing. There is no indication that such a delay would prejudice the Government, the defendant, or the Court in any meaningful way. By contrast, denying a stay would result in substantial and irreversible harm. As explained above, sentencing would proceed on a record shaped by demonstrably false factual premises, coercive procedural conditions, and unresolved restrictions on participation. Once sentencing occurs, these distortions will be embedded in the official record and cannot be meaningfully corrected through post-judgment review. Moreover, the harm is not limited to record integrity. The denial of a stay would effectively extinguish my ability to exercise statutory rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act at the only time they are meaningful—before sentencing. In these circumstances, where the harm to the movant is severe and irreparable, and the burden on the opposing parties is minimal, the balance of equities decisively favors maintaining the status quo through a temporary stay. Public Interest ● The public interest strongly favors a stay. This case implicates not only the statutory rights guaranteed under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, which require meaningful participation before sentencing, but also broader concerns regarding the integrity and public perception of the judicial process.

● Here, a district court order issued on demonstrably false factual premises was used to label a pro se participant as vexatious, impose pre-filing restrictions, and effectively suppress procedural objections, moreover, it was also inconsistent with Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208 (2d Cir. RESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 10 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 10 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 10 of 12

---

1998). If left uncorrected prior to sentencing, these judicially created distortions risk becoming embedded in the official record and treated as legitimate background. Importantly, allowing sentencing to proceed without correction could establish a precedent. Other district courts or parties may seek to replicate the use of orders like 596 to suppress pro se filings or chill individuals from raising procedural objections, thereby extending the harmful effect beyond this case. Such replication would undermine public confidence in the fairness, neutrality, and integrity of judicial proceedings across the federal system.

● Similarly, this case risks also establishing a precedent under which procedural constraints can operate to insulate unverified and non- reviewable victim figures from challenge, allowing them to serve as the baseline for sentencing determinations without adversarial testing or judicial validation.

● The public interest is implicated by a replicable framework in which unresolved identity overlap is used to support sentencing. Where individuals simultaneously occupy the roles of victim, participant, and evidentiary source, reliance on such materials without resolving attribution and reliability creates a structurally compromised record. If permitted here, this approach may be adopted in future cases, effectively normalizing the use of unverified and internally conflicted evidence in sentencing.

● The public interest is further implicated by the need to ensure judicial impartiality. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), recusal is required where a reasonable observer would question the court’s neutrality. As discussed in my pending mandamus petition, the record demonstrates reliance on demonstrably false factual premises, coercive procedural measures, and a pattern of selective enforcement affecting pro se participants. The mandamus petition specifically addresses the necessity of judicial recusal under these circumstances. Failure to resolve these recusal concerns prior to sentencing risks undermining public confidence in the judiciary itself. Such circumstances do not merely affect an individual litigant—they undermine public confidence in the fairness, accuracy, and neutrality of judicial RESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 11 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 11 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 11 of 12

---

proceedings. The appearance that a court may rely on inaccurate factual assumptions to restrict participation, while allowing those consequences to shape the sentencing record, raises serious concerns about the integrity of the adjudicative process itself. Allowing sentencing to proceed without resolving these issues would not only affect the parties involved, but would also signal that questions of judicial impartiality may go unexamined at critical stages of criminal proceedings— thereby eroding trust in the fairness and legitimacy of the judicial process.

XI. 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 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, Chunk Chyi (real name: Chunhong Qi)

April 15, 2026 RESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 12 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 12 of 12 Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.2, Page 12 of 12

---

Certificate of Service In re: Chunk Chyi, Petitioner United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Case No: 26-077 SDNY Case: United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT) I, Chunk Chyi, hereby certify as follows:

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

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A 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, Chunk Chyi

RESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.3, Page 1 of 1 RESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.3, Page 1 of 1 RESTRICTED Case: 26-77, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 12.3, Page 1 of 1