UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS 

 v. 

 Case No. 14-CR-20614 

JASON FLOAREA, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________/ 

SENTENCING HEARING 

Thursday, April 16, 2015 

Appearances: 

Kenneth R. Chadwell 

Gjon Juncaj 

U.S. Attorney's Office 

211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001 

Detroit, MI 48226 

313-226-9100 

Email: ken.chadwell@usdoj.gov 

On behalf of Plaintiff 

James C. Thomas 

O'Reilly Rancilio P.C. 

12900 Hall Road, Suite 350 

Sterling Heights, MI 48313 

586-726-1000 

Email: jthomas@orlaw.com 

On behalf of Defendant 

ALSO PRESENT: Jim Baldinger, Counsel for Sprint Corporation 

- - - 

Suzanne Jacques, Official Court Reporter 

www.transcriptorders.com • email: jacques@transcriptorders.com 

Case 2:14-cr-20614-NGE-MKM ECF No. 23, PageID.796 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 19
 2

Sentencing Hearing

Thursday, April 16, 2015

I N D E X

- - - 

Proceeding Page

Sentencing Hearing

Comments by Mr. Clint Breithaupt 5 

Allocution by Mr. Thomas 7 

Allocution by Mr. Chadwell 9 

Comments by Mr. Juncaj 10 

Allocution by the Defendant 11 

Sentence of the Court 13

Certification of Court Reporter 19 

Case No. 14-CR-20614 U.S.A. vs. Floarea

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:14-cr-20614-NGE-MKM ECF No. 23, PageID.797 Filed 05/22/15 Page 2 of 19
 3

Sentencing Hearing

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Detroit, Michigan

Thursday, April 16, 2015

9:35 a.m.

- - - 

THE CLERK: Case number 14-20614, U.S.A. vs. Jason

Floarea. Date and time set for sentencing. Counsel, state

your appearances for the record. 

MR. CHADWELL: Good morning, Your Honor, Kenneth

Chadwell for the United States.

MR. JUNCAJ: Gjon Juncaj for the United States.

MR. THOMAS: James Thomas on behalf of Jason

Floarea who is with me here today.

MR. BALDINGER: James Baldinger on behalf of Sprint

Corporation, the victim in this case.

THE COURT: Good morning. Be seated. This is the

date and time set for sentencing in this matter. I think I

took the plea and the -- plea agreement under advisement at

the time I accepted the Rule 11. You still want me to accept

it, I assume?

MR. CHADWELL: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. THOMAS: I ask you to, yes.

THE COURT: I will do that.

Mr. Thomas, have you had an opportunity to review

the Presence Investigation Report with Mr. Floarea?

MR. THOMAS: I have, Judge. It's complete and

Case No. 14-CR-20614 U.S.A. vs. Floarea

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:14-cr-20614-NGE-MKM ECF No. 23, PageID.798 Filed 05/22/15 Page 3 of 19
 4

Sentencing Hearing

Thursday, April 16, 2015

accurate in all respects. We reviewed the sentencing

guidelines calculation, and we understand the sentencing

guideline range is going to be 12 to 18 months with a category

I, 12 to 18 months guideline range.

THE COURT: Right. Any objections for the

government, Mr. Chadwell?

MR. CHADWELL: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I should just point out that with the

agreement that was reached with Sprint recently, technically,

I should raise the guideline range because the loss amount is

greater, but I'm not going to do that for purposes of

sentencing.

MR. THOMAS: It was our understanding by entering

into the agreement that we would not increase the guideline

range by doing that, and I appreciate that, Judge.

MR. CHADWELL: And from the government's point of

view, the guideline range is sufficient to address...

THE COURT: I appreciate that. I understand.

I understand, Mr. Baldinger, you wish to make a

statement?

MR. BALDINGER: Actually, Your Honor, my client is

here and would like to address the Court.

THE COURT: That would be fine. Brief statement?

MR. BALDINGER: Your Honor, this is Mr. Clint

Breithaupt. He is a senior investigator, fraud manager from

Case No. 14-CR-20614 U.S.A. vs. Floarea

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:14-cr-20614-NGE-MKM ECF No. 23, PageID.799 Filed 05/22/15 Page 4 of 19
 5

Sentencing Hearing

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Sprint, who wanted to address the Court regarding the

defendant's conduct and the impact it has had.

Do you want him to be sworn?

THE COURT: No, he doesn't need to be sworn. Go

ahead.

MR. BREITHAUPT: Your Honor, my name is Clint

Breithaupt and I represent Sprint Corporation and its

subsidiaries in federal civil lawsuits against handset

traffickers. I'm here today to explain the significant harm

that Mr. Floarea's conduct caused to Sprint.

I've worked for Sprint for almost 16 years. Prior

to that, I was a law enforcement officer for five years, and

for 21 years I have investigated multiple types of criminal

activities. During that time, I've never seen a criminal

enterprise as large as the one that Jason Floarea operated

under Ace Wholesale Incorporated. In fact, all of the other

handset traffickers in this area that Sprint has sued all say

that they learned the business from Jason Floarea, and that,

in fact, he's the godfather of handset trafficking.

The magnitude of wireless handsets trafficked, and

subsequent losses, in this case is staggering. I'm not aware

of any other prosecution of a handset trafficker who has dealt

in such large quantities of phones.

From October 2010 until the company was shut down

by law enforcement in August of 2012, Mr. Floarea's company

Case No. 14-CR-20614 U.S.A. vs. Floarea

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:14-cr-20614-NGE-MKM ECF No. 23, PageID.800 Filed 05/22/15 Page 5 of 19
 6

Sentencing Hearing

Thursday, April 16, 2015

trafficked in 371,702 wireless handsets, which he then sold,

primarily overseas to China, for $151 million. Of those,

67,753 were Sprint handsets which Ace Wholesale sold for over

$24 million. Sprint losses exceed over $85 million in this

case. Myself as well as other members of Sprint's fraud

department analyzed the data and identified that at least

42,382 of these Sprint handsets were obtained by fraudulent

means.

Handset trafficking has cost Sprint hundreds of

millions of dollars. These traffickers take advantage of

programs that Sprint offers to make its phones more affordable

to its customers. Not only does this harm Sprint, but it

harms our consumers.

Mr. Floarea's crimes against Sprint helped fuel a

wave of violent crime throughout the communities that he

operated in. In fact, in a report by the U.S. Department of

Justice Bureau Assistance stated significant increase of the

theft of wireless phones, and lists Detroit as having the

sixth highest rate of smartphone thefts per capita in the

nation.

Sprint implemented a program to take aggressive

action against handset traffickers like Ace Wholesale and

Jason Floarea. To date, Sprint has filed 57 lawsuits against

198 handset trafficker defendants in federal courts across the

country.

Case No. 14-CR-20614 U.S.A. vs. Floarea

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:14-cr-20614-NGE-MKM ECF No. 23, PageID.801 Filed 05/22/15 Page 6 of 19
 7

Sentencing Hearing

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Too often with this type of criminal activity,

there is so much money involved that being incarcerated is

just the cost of doing business. Sprint asks the Court to

send a message today to Mr. Floarea and anyone else thinking

of conducting this type of criminal activity that you can't

afford to do business in the State of Michigan.

Sprint urges the Court to consider a prison term of

18 months for Mr. Floarea.

Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. BALDINGER: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sure.

Mr. Thomas, is there anything you'd like to say on

behalf of Mr. Floarea before I impose sentence?

MR. THOMAS: Your Honor, should we address you from

here, or shall we approach?

THE COURT: Be easier if you would address me from

the podium, easier for Suzanne I think, too.

MR. THOMAS: I did not expect to hear from Sprint

on this, especially since we had settled the case. And

despite the hyperbole of what it was that was just said to

you, we stand here and have been ready to resolve our issue,

to pay our debts, to withstand the significant forfeitures

that have occurred in this case, and to be ready for the

sentencing that you're going to impose.

Case No. 14-CR-20614 U.S.A. vs. Floarea

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:14-cr-20614-NGE-MKM ECF No. 23, PageID.802 Filed 05/22/15 Page 7 of 19
 8

Sentencing Hearing

Thursday, April 16, 2015

You have the ability to depart downward, you know

that. I don't have to argue about the case law that goes for

that. I presented to you a sentencing memorandum which shows

the other side of Mr. Floarea; the fact that he's a family

man, that he has four small children at home, that he has a

devoted wife, how much he's given up as a result of being

involved in what was alleged by the government and what we

ultimately did resolve by one count of plea by information.

We have resolved with Sprint in spite of the

hyperbole of that conversation that you just heard, that case,

by agreeing to the $600,000 that has been stipulated to in

part of the restitution agreement.

I ask that the Court take into consideration all

the purposes of sentencing, not send a message, but to take a

look at Mr. Floarea individually and sentence him accordingly.

I've had the chance to be with him since the

beginning of this investigation. He has been diligent, he's

been straightforward, he's come to me and has attempted to try

and resolve it over these years. Mr. Chadwell has been more

than patient with us in working out what we think is a

reasonable solution to this case.

So I'm going to leave it to your discretion. Of

course, he does not want to go to prison. His wife is here,

she doesn't want him to go to prison. You have the ability to

give him a sentence anywhere between probation and the

Case No. 14-CR-20614 U.S.A. vs. Floarea

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:14-cr-20614-NGE-MKM ECF No. 23, PageID.803 Filed 05/22/15 Page 8 of 19
 9

Sentencing Hearing

Thursday, April 16, 2015

guidelines, to the top of the guidelines, and so I'm asking

you to use your discretion.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Thomas.

THE DEFENDANT: Can I say something?

THE COURT: You will in just a second. I'm going

to ask the government first, and then I'm going to come back

and give you the last word, okay?

THE DEFENDANT: All right.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Chadwell.

MR. CHADWELL: We'll just remain here, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That's okay. 

MR. CHADWELL: Your Honor, from the government's

point of view, we do think prison is warranted in this case

for really two reasons. One is, if someone engages in a fraud

scheme and makes a couple million dollars and only has to pay

part of it back and that's it, that's a pretty good deal, and

that would encourage other people to continue to do that sort

of thing. Your Honor does need to send a message out to

society for the general deterrence to discourage other people

from doing this. 

And the second reason we think jail is warranted is

that Mr. Floarea's conduct does encourage other people to

commit more serious criminal activity. There are a lot of

cell phone store armed robberies in this area, and Mr. Floarea

himself would never do that himself, but because he engaged in

Case No. 14-CR-20614 U.S.A. vs. Floarea

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:14-cr-20614-NGE-MKM ECF No. 23, PageID.804 Filed 05/22/15 Page 9 of 19
 10

Sentencing Hearing

Thursday, April 16, 2015

this business it does encourage people to either do that or to

engage in the fraudulent activities that Your Honor has also

heard about in various memoranda in this case. And so we do

think that other criminal activity occurred because of

Mr. Floarea's conduct. We can't say specifically which

crimes, but he was engaging in it enough that that did

encourage people to commit other more serious crimes. And so

for both of those reasons, we believe Your Honor should impose

imprisonment in this case.

Mr. Juncaj has a couple comments on the financial

matters that are still outstanding.

MR. JUNCAJ: Thank you, Your Honor. Very briefly,

the Court recently entered a stipulated order of forfeiture in

the amount of $120,000 money judgment which is payable within

60 days. Separate and apart from forfeiture in this case, the

government has initiated a civil forfeiture procedure also,

which Mr. Floarea has agreed not to challenge the forfeiture

of all the assets in that case, which is about $900,000 and

thousands of electronic devices.

THE COURT: Do you have a copy of the forfeiture

agreement? The file was put together before we --

MR. JUNCAJ: I think so, Your Honor. It's a

stipulated preliminary order of forfeiture.

THE COURT: I've got it, I'm sorry.

MR. JUNCAJ: Okay. And just so it's noted on the

Case No. 14-CR-20614 U.S.A. vs. Floarea

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:14-cr-20614-NGE-MKM ECF No. 23, PageID.805 Filed 05/22/15 Page 10 of 19
 11

Sentencing Hearing

Thursday, April 16, 2015

record today, there is the restitution that was ordered by the

Court and agreed upon, the $600,000.

THE COURT: I have that, too. Restitution of

$600,000.

MR. JUNCAJ: And then we ask that all that be

included in the judgment, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Of course.

MR. JUNCAJ: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Floarea, I'm happy to hear anything

you want to say on your own behalf before I impose sentence.

THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I hear this stuff going

on today, and I'm in shock. When I look at the amounts that

they're claiming with losses, in regards to losses, I'm not

talking about facts in general, I'm just talking about the

magnitude.

Overall, when I started the business, when I went

through it, I did it with a clean conscience, not doing it

originally thinking this is something wrong or I'm doing it to

defraud someone intentionally. As the case progressed, after

I got shut down, thus far two and-a-half years, two years and

ten months ago roughly, I started hearing about these facts,

started hearing about the law, started understanding, okay, so

subsidized phones that go out, they're fraud, okay. So I'm

guilty of that if that's the law. I take responsibility. If

that's the law, we buy something that was once obtained

Case No. 14-CR-20614 U.S.A. vs. Floarea

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:14-cr-20614-NGE-MKM ECF No. 23, PageID.806 Filed 05/22/15 Page 11 of 19
 12

Sentencing Hearing

Thursday, April 16, 2015

through subsidized means, I'll obtain that guilt because

that's when I found out that that was illegal. Had I known

this ahead of time, I would have never been engaged in that.

Simply, how we bought it is how we sold it. We

were middle men, and I did not make these kind of -- you heard

numbers of millions right now, $80 million losses. Judge, we

worked on a flat rate of 5 to 6 percent profit, period. These

are not profit. I'm broke, I have no money. It's been two

and-a-half years. Everything I have has been forfeited. You

know what I'm saying, Your Honor?

THE COURT: I do.

THE DEFENDANT: So two and-a-half years now has not

been easy for me, for our family. It's been stress, it's been

a strain on us completely in every -- I mean, other people

have lost their minds in this. This is only mercy of God that

got me through this so far.

Whatever is left is already gone. All I have left

is my family, honest. I'm only left in debt over my head from

this. I still have a lot to pay back from here. All this is

forfeited. I have nothing to live on from now on. This is

it. The house, the house is gone, all this is going to be

zero. I still got to work in the future decades to pay back

investors that came out because all that money that was

seized, that was not my personal money, that was investors'

money, working capital. But I'm still responsible on that

Case No. 14-CR-20614 U.S.A. vs. Floarea

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:14-cr-20614-NGE-MKM ECF No. 23, PageID.807 Filed 05/22/15 Page 12 of 19
 13

Sentencing Hearing

Thursday, April 16, 2015

because I gave my word.

MR. THOMAS: Now, I've told you three times --

THE DEFENDANT: I'm sorry, Your Honor, it's a lot

of pressure, a lot of stuff for all this time.

THE COURT: I'm sure it is.

THE DEFENDANT: Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Floarea.

Well, this is a sad and difficult case. The

guideline provisions are agreed at 12 to 18 months, and that

was the agreement in the Rule 11 agreement, as well, which I

did accept. Guidelines are advisory, they're not mandatory.

The Court is directed to look at the factors under 18 U.S.C.

Section 3553(a), to impose a sentence sufficient but not

greater than necessary to achieve the statutory objectives.

The first factor the Court is directed to consider

is the nature and circumstance of the offense and the history

and characteristics of the defendant. We do see two different

Jason Floareas here. We see a devoted family man who I think

basically is a good person and has a lot to offer to the

community, to his neighbors, his family, no question about

that. On the other hand, this was a widespread enterprise

that, as the government pointed out, does encourage other

criminal activity.

The losses to Sprint were considerable, and to

Verizon as well, I believe. I mean, I have no reason to

Case No. 14-CR-20614 U.S.A. vs. Floarea

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:14-cr-20614-NGE-MKM ECF No. 23, PageID.808 Filed 05/22/15 Page 13 of 19
 14

Sentencing Hearing

Thursday, April 16, 2015

disbelieve Mr. Floarea when he says he didn't realize at the

outset that what he was doing was criminal, but he knew it at

some point, and it was a very large and widespread enterprise.

So that's one factor. 

The second factor is the seriousness of the offense

and to promote respect for the law and to provide just

punishment for the offense. I mean, it's a serious economic

offense. It's not a violent offense, but again, as the

government suggests, it has the tendency to promote violence

from others. But this kind of widespread activity and the

amount of money that can be made doing it does have a tendency

to promote violence.

We do need to provide some punishment. That's what

the guidelines intend to do, they try to do. I really look at

this factor as a guidelines factor. The guidelines try to

take all of these factors into consideration when reaching the

12 to 18 months that's suggested.

The deterrence to criminal conduct and the need to

protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, I

would say it's unlikely that this defendant is going to commit

anymore crimes given how devastating this has been for him and

for his family, but it is important to establish social

deterrence in this case. Others need to see that this kind of

activity will not go unpunished and that the bottom line is

not worth it.

Case No. 14-CR-20614 U.S.A. vs. Floarea

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:14-cr-20614-NGE-MKM ECF No. 23, PageID.809 Filed 05/22/15 Page 14 of 19
 15

Sentencing Hearing

Thursday, April 16, 2015

The other factors aren't really at issue here.

There's no need for educational or vocational training,

medical care, et cetera. So having said all of that, I think

that a short custodial sentence is warranted here, and I know

that's going to be hard not just for Mr. Floarea but for his

family, for his wife who has been very devoted and supportive

through all of this, for his children who want their dad back.

I don't think a long custodial sentence is required, but I do

believe that a sentence at the bottom of the guideline range

is in fact appropriate in this case.

So on Count 1 of the Information, pursuant to the

Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the Court, having considered

the guideline factors contained in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), hereby

places defendant Jason Floarea into the custody of the Bureau

of Prisons for a term of 12 months and one day. The reason

it's 12 months and one day is that that gives you the time off

at the end of the first year, so essentially is a sentence of

ten and-a-half months.

A two-year term of supervised release is imposed to

follow the term of imprisonment. A special assessment of $100

is ordered due immediately. The Court finds that given the

restitution obligation and the substantial forfeitures, the

defendant does not have the ability to pay a fine and

therefore does not order one. The Court also waives the costs

of incarceration and supervision.

Case No. 14-CR-20614 U.S.A. vs. Floarea

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:14-cr-20614-NGE-MKM ECF No. 23, PageID.810 Filed 05/22/15 Page 15 of 19
 16

Sentencing Hearing

Thursday, April 16, 2015

I don't think mandatory, the mandatory drug testing

requirement is necessary. Do you agree, Mr. Chadwell?

MR. CHADWELL: That's correct, Your Honor.

MR. THOMAS: I do, too.

THE COURT: So I'm going to waive the mandatory

drug testing. While on supervised release, defendant shall

abide by the standard conditions adopted by this Court as well

as the following special condition. Defendant shall make

monthly installment payments on any outstanding restitution

and forfeiture obligations at a rate recommended by the

probation department and approved by the Court. The defendant

shall not incur any new credit charges or open additional

lines of credit without the approval of the probation officer.

Defendant shall provide the probation officer access to any

requested financial information.

THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, is there any way I can

be at home, at least kind of home, house arrest or something,

with my kids? It's going to be crazy with four kids and my

wife alone.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, Mr. Floarea, I believe that

the sentence I've stated is the appropriate sentence in this

case.

There's a little bit more. Due to the history of

mental health issues, the following special condition is also

imposed. If necessary, defendant shall participate in mental

Case No. 14-CR-20614 U.S.A. vs. Floarea

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:14-cr-20614-NGE-MKM ECF No. 23, PageID.811 Filed 05/22/15 Page 16 of 19
 17

Sentencing Hearing

Thursday, April 16, 2015

health counseling at the direction of the probation

department, and because of past substance abuse, if necessary,

defendant shall participate in a program approved by the

probation department for substance abuse which may include

testing to determine if the defendant has reverted to the use

of drugs or alcohol.

Defendant shall take all medications prescribed by

any treating physician and shall not discontinue medication

without explicit agreement by such physician.

Mr. Floarea, you do have the right -- oh, we've got

the forfeiture that we're entering. The preliminary order of

forfeiture will be made part of the judgment and commitment,

as well as the restitution obligation to Sprint in the amount

of $600,000.

PROBATION OFFICER: Your Honor, mandatory drug

testing would apply in this case. The defendant does have a

history of marijuana and Vicodin use.

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to order that.

MR. THOMAS: Your Honor, if the Court is going to

order that, then would you put in the judgment that RDAP is

suggested?

THE COURT: He won't qualify for RDAP.

MR. THOMAS: Well, then, why mandatory testing for

drugs?

THE COURT: It's part of the supervised release.

Case No. 14-CR-20614 U.S.A. vs. Floarea

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:14-cr-20614-NGE-MKM ECF No. 23, PageID.812 Filed 05/22/15 Page 17 of 19
 18

Sentencing Hearing

Thursday, April 16, 2015

MR. THOMAS: In any event, will you allow, at least

make a recommendation that he, the Bureau of Prisons designate

him to Morgantown?

THE COURT: Morgantown, sure, yes, I will do that.

Mr. Floarea, you have the right to -- I don't think

you have the right to appeal the sentence, actually, because

it's within the guideline range, and you've waived that as

part of your Rule 11 agreement.

To the extent there's any issue that you wish to

raise on appeal, that has to be done within 14 days.

I'll let you self surrender; that is, you'll wait

until we have a placement for you with the Bureau of Prisons.

The marshals will inform you and inform Mr. Thomas. You may

self surrender. I'm going to recommend Morgantown with maybe

Milan as a backup if they can't get you to Morgantown for some

reason, and then if you can't get there on your own, you're to

let Mr. Thomas know and he'll arrange for transportation

through the marshals.

I wish you good luck.

THE DEFENDANT: All right, Your Honor.

THE CLERK: Court stands in recess.

(Proceedings concluded 9:56 a.m.)

Case No. 14-CR-20614 U.S.A. vs. Floarea

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:14-cr-20614-NGE-MKM ECF No. 23, PageID.813 Filed 05/22/15 Page 18 of 19
- - -

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

I, Suzanne Jacques, Official Court Reporter for the United States 

District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, 

hereby certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript of the 

proceedings in the above-entitled cause on the date set forth. 

s:\_______________________ 

 Suzanne Jacques, RPR, RMR, CRR, FCRR 

 Official Court Reporter 

 Eastern District of Michigan 

- - - 

Case No. 14-CR-20614 U.S.A. vs. Floarea

Case 2:14-cr-20614-NGE-MKM ECF No. 23, PageID.814 Filed 05/22/15 Page 19 of 19