NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0006n.06 F iled: Janu ary 7, 2008 No. 05-6946 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. ADNANSHAL ASH, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt.

__________________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR THE EA STE RN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

B EF OR E: B AT CH EL DE R, C OL E, and GR I F F I N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg e. Def endant- appellant Adnan S halash was convicted of eleve n counts of a twe nty -one c ount mul ti- de fe nd ant i nd ic tme nt. Spe c if ic a lly , Sh a la shwa s c on vic te d o f t wo c ounts of

c on sp ir a c y

to po sse ss and re c e ive sto le n pr op e rt y , in v iol a tio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 37 1 ( Counts 1 a nd 6) , f our c ounts of re ceipt and posse ssion of stolen g oods and merc handise under 18 U.S.C. § 2315 (Counts 2, 7, 10, and 12), two c o u n ts o f

tr an s p o rtati o no f

s to le ng o o d s an d

me r c h an d is e u n d e r

1 8 U
. S. C. § 2314 (Counts 9 and 11), and thr ee c ounts under 18 U.S.C. § 19 5 6 (a )( 1 )( A) (i ) of intent to promote the
c arr yingon of the sp e c if

ie d unla wf ul a c ti vi ty

(C ounts 15 , 1 6, and

19 ). Sha la shargue s th a t hi s conviction must be reve rsed be cause (1) the tr ial court a dmitted into evidence r efe ren ces to the
c ri min a l a c tiv ity

of Sha la sh ’s fa

mil y and bu sin e ss a sso c iate s; (2) a fed e ra l a g e nt r e fe re nc e d h isNo. 05-6946

Un ite d S tat es v . S ha las h

- 2 - experience in investigating ter rorism case s during his direc t testimony ; (3) the trial court a llowed the United States to introduce the business rec eipts of S &A Wholesale during direc t testimony and then used that evidenc e for a

n improper pur

pose duringclosingargument; and (4) a fede ral a g ent testified that he had pr evious suspicions of S halash being eng ag ed in criminal activity . Shalash argues fur ther that these e rror s, even if insufficient individually , are sufficie nt in the ag g reg ate to w arr ant re versa l of his conviction. Shalash additionally contends that the district c ourt improperly calc ulated the
a mou nt d ue un de r t he fo rf e iture a lle g a tio n. We co nc lud e that none of the se argume nts have me ri t
and the re fo re a ff

ir m. I. Ad na n Sh a la shimm ig rate d to the Un ite d State s fr om Pa le sti ne in the e arl y 19 90 s. Som e tim e afte r his arrival, Shalas h b ega no p er at i n g S &A W h o l es al e, a Lex i n gt o n , Ke n tu ck y en t er p ri s e enga g ed in the business of purc hasing g oods and re selling the m to companies at a profit. I n approximately

2000 or 2001, the F eder al B urea u of Investig ation (“F BI ”) be g an investigating members of Shalash’ s family in relation to the interstate transportation of stolen pr op e rt y . T hr ou g h th is i nv e stigati on , the F B Isu sp e c te d th a t Sh a la shand his ne ph e w, I

br ahim S hal ash , w e re a lso inv olv e d in the re c e ipt of sto le n pr op e rt y . B a se d on the se su sp ic ion s, the FBI org anized a sting in March of 2004. This ope ration involved an under cover FB Iag ent, Alex Peraza, p o s in g a s “ Ru

b e n , ” a Cu b anc ar g o th e f

t r in g le a d e r . D e f

e n d an t a n d I b r ah im Sh a la s h b e li e v e d

Pe r a za to b e the br oth e r- in- law o f o ne of I brahim ’s e mpl oy e e s at M& M G ro c e ry . Pe ra za s up po se dlyNo. 05-6946

Un ite d S tat es v . S ha las h

- 3 - employ ed truc k drivers who would targ et t rac tor trailers for t heft, and, during the investig ation, he offe red pr oducts to Adnan a nd I brahim that he r epre sented a s stolen. Ad na n Sh a la sh ’s fi rs t c on ta c t w ithPe ra za w a s o n N ov e mbe r 16 , 20 04 , wh e n Pe ra za and his
as s o ciates use d defe ndant’s wa rehouse for “ leaka g e” of baby formula f

rom a tra ctor tra iler. “L eaka g e” involves dr illing a r ivet into a trailer a nd removingthe trailer ’s sec urity bar, a llowing the pr od uc t in sid e to be re mov e d w ith ou t th e br e a kin g of any loc ks or se a ls. Wei g hts , s uc h a s sa nd ba g s,
are the n a dd e d to c on c e a l th e we ig ht o f t he re mov e d p ro du c t. Pe ra za, wi th h is a sso c iate s, and in front of de fenda

nt and I brahim, drilled into the trailer , diseng ag ed the se curity arm, a nd remove d 512
c a se s o f b a

by fo rm ula . Pe ra za, a ft e r ne g oti a tin g wi th de fe nd ant ov e r the qu anti ty of ba by fo rm ula to be purc hased, tol d d ef en dant that they

neede d to replac e the we ight of the missing for

mula. De f e n d an ts u g g e s t e d

u s i n g t a b l e t s o r t a b l e s . P e r a z a

t h e nd i s c u s s e d

w i t h d e f e n d an tt h e p o s sib ili ty of obtaining an entire load of ba by formula in the future. Peraza also informed defe ndant of the ne ed to s e ll the me rc ha

nd ise qu ic kly

and to d isp os e of

the tr a ile r a s so on

a s p os si ble. De fe nd ant p a id Peraza $25,600 in ca sh for the 512 c ases of formula. Th e ne xt dir e c t c on ta c t be tw e e n Pe ra za a nd de fe nd ant o c c ur

re d o n Jan ua ry 6, 20 05 . I

br ahim Shalash, who had be en in contac t with Peraza over the pre vious months, t old Peraza that he w ished to p u r c h a s e 2 , 8 0 0 c a s e s o f b a b y f o r mu la
. I b r ah im s u g g e s te d

th a t this f

o r mu la , w h ic h Pe r a za
re pr e se nte d a s st ole n, c ou ld b e sto re d in defend ant’ s w are ho us e . Pe ra za a rr ive d at th e wa

re ho us e befor e I brahim and c onverse d with de fenda nt. Adnan Shalash had expressed conce rn to Ibrahim that the fo rm ula wa s c on ne c te d to the F B I , and tol d Pe ra za t

hat he wi sh e d to g e t r id o f t he loa d q uic klyNo. 05-6946

Un ite d S tat es v . S ha las h

- 4 - beca use he w as uncomfor

table storing it at t h e wa re house. L ater that evening , defe ndant phoned Peraza a nd stated that in the fut u re t h ey should deal direc tly , rathe r than use I brahim as a

n i n t e r m e d i ar y. Def endant a g a in me t w it h Pe r a za o nF e b r u ar y 1 0 , 2 0 0 5 , a t h is w ar e h o u s e , w h e r e they discussed the possibility

of obtaining another shipment of baby formula. Peraza told defe ndant that thi s w ou ld b e di ffi cul t, a s th e y ha d s tol e n b a

by fo rm ula on tw o p re vio us oc c a sio ns . T he y a lso dis c us se d s wi tc hin g tr a ile rs to a vo id d e te c tio n b y

law e nf or c e me nt. Peraza c alled def

endant on F ebrua

ry 17, 2005, to offer

hi m a l o ad of L isterine Cool Mint br e a th s tr ips . T his ne g oti a tio n c on tin ue d o ve r t he c ours e of

se ve ra l ph on e c a lls , w iththe tw o f ina lly ag ree ing on a

price of $30,000. This shipment was deliver ed on Mar ch 1, 2005, and the neg otiated amount was pa id in cash. P er aza phoned de fenda nt ag ain on Marc h 8, 2005, to discuss the status of a f orty -pallet load of

baby formula, a g ree ing on a

price of $300,000. This formula shipment wa s delivere d on Marc h 17, 2005. A sea rch w arr ant was e x ecute d upon delivery , an d d ef en d ant and I brahim we re a

rre sted. On April 7, 2005, a f

eder al g rand jury

in the Easter

n District of Ke ntucky

returne d an indictment c harg ing Adnan Shalash with two counts of conspirac y to posse ss a nd rec ei v e s t olen proper ty that had traveled in intersta t e co mmerce , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, five counts of
re c e ipt and po sse ssi on of sto le n g oo ds and me rc ha nd ise , in vio latio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 23 15 , tw o c ounts of transpor

tation of stolen g oods and merc handise unde r 18 U.S.C. § 2314, and a c riminal forfe iture
a lle g a tio n ma de purs ua

nt t o 18 U.S. C. § 981( c ) an d 28 U.S. C. § 24 61 . Atw e nty -o ne c ount m ult i-No. 05-6946

Un ite d S tat es v . S ha las h

- 5 - defe ndant superse ding indictment wa s filed on J une 2, 2005, cha rg ing defe ndant wit h two counts of
c on sp ir a c y to po sse ss a

nd re c e ive sto le n p ro pe rt

y that ha d tr a ve le d in

int e rs tate c omm e rc e , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Counts 1 and 6), five counts of rec eipt and possession of stolen g oods and mer chandise under 18 U .S.C. § 2315 (Count s 2, 7, 10, 12, and 13), two c ounts of transporta tion of stol e n g oo ds and

me rc ha nd ise , in vio latio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 23 14 (C ounts 9 a nd 11 ), fi ve c ounts under 18 U .S.C. § 1 9 5 6 (a )( 1 )(A)(I ) of intent to promote the c arr ying on of

the spec ified unlawf

ul activity (the 18 U.S.C. §§ 231 4 and 2315 alleg ations) (Counts 15-19), a nd a cr iminal forfe iture alleg ation pursuan t t o 1 8 U. S
. C
. § 981(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461 (Count 20). The Apr il 7, 2005, indictment was dismissed on Dece mber 22, 2005. Adnan Shalash pr ocee ded to trial on August 11, 2005. His defense at trial was that he was
unawa re that the merc handise he possessed was stolen and that he had no knowledg e of the common methods employ ed in stealingthe g oods. The jury returne d a ver dict of g uilty on Counts 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, an d 1 9 , an d a v erdict of not guilty on Counts 13, 17, and 18. Shalash was sentenc ed to fifty -one months of imprisonment on ea ch count to run c o n cu rr en t l y , three y ear s of supervised r elea se, and a

$100 specia l assessment per count. The mag istrate judg e conduc ted an evidentiar y hear ing on Fe bruar

y 23, 2006, to discern the proper amount o we d u n d er t h e for feiture count of the indictment. The United States argued that Shalash should f

orfe it $184,352, the g ross proce eds of the proper ty involved in Counts 1, 9, and 10 of the indictment, while Shalash c ontended that he should only be required to forfeit the ne t proce edsNo. 05-6946

Un ite d S tat es v . S ha las h

- 6 - of the tr ans a c tio ns inv olv ingthe pr op e rt y in t he a bo ve c ounts
. At the tim e of the he ari ng , Sh a la sh repr esente d the net proc eeds to be $24,340; he now conte nds his net ga in to be $35,892. II. The district c ourt’s decision to a dmit or exclude evidenc e is r eviewe d under an ab u s e of d i s cr et ion standard. United States v. W iedyk, 7 1 F
. 3 d

6 0 2 , 6 0 9 ( 6 th

Ci r . 1 9 9 5 )
. E v e nif

a district court a bused its discretion, a de cision will be reve rsed only if the subs tantial rig hts of a par ty are aff ecte d. United States v. Bonds , 12 F.3d 540, 554 ( 6th Cir. 1993). Shalash’s first ar g ument conce rns two sepa rate alleg ations. Shalash fi rs t argue s that the statement of F BI

Ag ent Chri s J ancosko, ma de duringhis direct testimony , wher ein he state d “our office beg an g ather ing intellig ence on Adnan Shalash dur ing a s epar ate investigation of relatives of Adnan” was improper . Def endant objec ted to this statement at trial and was overr uled. He a

rg ues that the Shalash fa

mily “is well known in the L exington are a for cri m i nal ac tivity ,” and thus Janc os ko ’s state me nt t

hat Adn an’s name aro se duri ngan inve sti g a tio n o f t he fa mil y wa s und uly prejudicia l. He fur

ther opines that the statement sug g ests that he wa s investigated pre viously for criminal ac tivity , which is inacc urate
. Shalash additionally

contends that the i n t ro d u ction of the indictment of Ey ad Suleiman, a business associate of hi s, into testimony was im proper . Shalash timely objected to the a dmittance
o f t h e i n d i ct m en t , an d

t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ru l edt h at ev i d en ce o f S u l ei m an ’s i n d i ct m en t , al t h o u gh prejudicia l, was nonethe less rele vant. Shalash believe s t h at i t s introduction cre ates the imprope rNo. 05-6946

Un ite d S tat es v . S ha las h

- 7 - infere nce of

g uilt by association and ma intains that it wa s improper for the prosec ution to comment on an indictment as proof of g uilt. I t is a xiomatic tha

t g uil t by a sso c iatio n is an insu ff

ic ie nt ba sis on wh ic h to ob ta in o r s us ta in a convic tion. United States v. Gibbs , 182 F.3d 408, 423 (6th Cir. 1999) . Her e, howe ver, Shala sh’s conviction does not re st on me re association with c riminals, but on his a ctual criminal conduct. The United States anticipated that Shalash’s defe nse at trial would be that he was unawa re that the g oods he purc ha se d a

nd so ld w e re sto le n. Th e iss ue of Sha la sh ’s kn ow le dg e the re fo re be c a me re le va nt. The fa ct that def

endant ha d worke d with his relative Tareq Shalash, who s ubsequently was c onvicted of dea ling in stolen prope rty , and boug ht a nd sold f rom Suleiman, who was under indictment at the time of th e ir d e a li n g s , is c ir c u ms ta n ti a l e v id e n c e th a t Sh a la s h p o s s e s s e d kn o w le d g e o f th e stolen nature of his merc handise. This testimony

is also releva

nt to Count 13 of t he indictment. I brahim Shalash testified that he first became involved in the fenc ing of stolen proper

ty throug h defe ndant, beg inning in 2001. He
a dd iti on a lly

te sti fi e d that he and de fe nd ant de a lt wi th oth e rs inv olv e d in the fe nc ing of sto le n g oo ds
. He state d that he and de fenda nt discussed how to avoid makingthe same mistakes as their r elatives Ta re q an d Z ia d Sha la sh , suc h as av oid ing the ft of larg e tr uc ks , b e c a

us e thi s w ou ld m or e lik e ly re su lt in their arr est. This testimony is pla inly rele vant to demonstrate that de fenda nt eng ag ed in cr iminal activity dating back to 2001. We ther efor e conc lude that the district cour t did not er

r in admitting this evidence
. III
.No. 05-6946

Un ite d S tat es v . S ha las h

- 8 - Second, Shalash a

rg ues that the district cour t committed e r

r o r requiringreve rsal by

admitting Ag ent J ancosko’ s testimony t h at he primar ily investigated terr orism case s. During direc t examination, the United States inquired about J ancosko’ s backg round, including his education, milit ary service , and his duties at the F BI . Reg ardingt h e l ast point, the g overnme nt asked a nd J ancosko r esponded: Q. What kind of cases ha ve y ou been a ssigne d since you went to L exington? A. A multit ude of differ ent ty pes of case s, but most of what I have been w orking is t e rr or ism

c a se s. Q. Okay , and have y ou also worke d some inte rs t at e t ranspor tation of stolen pr op e rt y c a se s? A. That’s c orre ct, sir. Shalash asser

ts that t h e t estimony

reg ardingterror ism cases funda mentally aff ecte d the fairne ss of the trial, g iven his Middle-Eastern ba ckg round and g ener al public sensitivity reg arding terror is m. He ad di ti on all y st ate s t hat eight week s pri or to hi s tri al, CBS News repo rt ed t hat th e FBI had trac ed money from baby formula tra fficke rs to terror ist groups suc h as Hamas and He zboll ah, and that two month s p ri or to the trial the loca l newspape r re ported a comment from F BI

Direc tor Rob e rt Mu e lle r t

hat sa le s o f b la c k ma

rk e t ba by fo rm ula have be e n u se d to fund te rr or ist org anizations. Shalash did not object to this comment at trial. As such, we revi ew the admission of the
s tatement for

plain err or. United States v. Bailey , 4 8 8 F
. 3 d 3 6 3 , 3 6 7
- 6 8 ( 6 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 7 )
. I no rder to find plain err or, there must be (1) e rror in the lower c ourt; (2) that error is plain; (3) the plain err orNo. 05-6946

Un ite d S tat es v . S ha las h

- 9 - a ff e c te d th e de fe nd ant’ s su

bs tant ial ri ghts; and

(4 ) t he pla in e rr or

se ri ou sly a ff e c te d th e fa ir

ne ss, integ rity , or public reputation of judicial proce eding s. United St ates v. Fraser , 448 F.3d 833, 841 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Thomas , 11 F.3d 620, 629 ( 6th Cir. 1993)). We find that Shalash suffe red no unf air pre judice fr om Ag ent J ancosko’ s statement. The
c omm ent , bo th in its c on te nt a nd in i ts p la c e me nt a

t th e be g inn ingof

the te sti mony , w a s c le arl y
e li c it e d to e s tabl is h Jan c o s k o ’ s b a c k g r o u n d an d qu a li f ic a ti o n s . T h e U n it e d

St a te s ’ s v e r

y n e xt question was whe ther Jancosko p o s s es s ed ex perie nce in de aling with interstate tra nsportation of sto le n p ro pe rt

y . T his po int e d f

oll ow -u p q ue sti on , b y

vir tue of its sp e c if

ic ity , c lari fi e d th a t on ly Janc os ko ’s e xpe ri e nc e in d e a lin g wi th t he int e rs tate sa le of

sto le n p r o p e r t y w a s i mme diate ly

re le va nt. It a l s o b e ar s n o t i n g t h a tt h e p r i m ar y d i s c u s s i o no f

S h a l a s h ’ s e t h n i c i t y, a n d o f t e r r o r i s m g e n e r a l l y,
occur red dur ing de fense counsel’s voir dir e of the jury . Counsel inquired at leng th as to whether the jury believed the y

could be impar

tial to Shalash give n his e thnicity , and told the jury “[t] here is no alleg ation in this case that he is a terror ist in any way . Terr orism is not a n issue at all in this case.” Given the incr edibly

brief r efe renc e to terr orism on direct e x amination and d efe nse counse l’s passionate e x planation that terr o ri s m wa s a non-issue, no r easona ble jury could conc lude that Sha la sh ’s tr ia l in vo lve d te rr or ist a c tiv ity . We the re fo re ho ld t hat th e dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t c omm it plain err or in admitting the a bove stateme nt. I V. Third, Shalash ar g ues that the district c ourt abused its discr etion in a dmitti ng into evidence the ba nk re c or ds of

S& A Wh ole sa le . T he se re c or ds ind ic a te d that se ve ra l mil lio n do lla rs in b us ine ssNo. 05-6946

Un ite d S tat es v . S ha las h

- 10 - had been condu c te d d

ur ingthe tim e of

the a lle g e d c ri min a l a c tiv ity . F B IAg e nt Jos e phMo utz testified that S&A had writt en a total of $3,417,348.63 in chec ks made out to ca sh and had pa id out a total of $8.6 million during this period. Shalash a rg ues that this inf

ormation was pre

judicial and irrele vant bec ause the se re cords do not demonstrate that Shalash had knowledg e of the stolen nature of the mer chandise . Shalash objecte d to this testimony at trial, but did not object when the United State s r e fe rr e d to Ag e nt M ou tz’ s te sti mony duri ngc los ingargume nts . H e a sk s, ho we ve r, that th is court c o n s id e r h is o r ig in a l o b je c ti o n a s a c o n ti nu in g o b je c ti o n , an d th

u s r e v ie w f

o r an a b u s e of discret i o n, rathe r than plain e rror . Our c onclusion is the same under either standa

rd bec ause w e
c on c lud e that th e dis tr ic t c ourt ne ith er co mmi tte d e rr or

no r a bu se d it s d isc re tio n in

a dmi tti ngthi s testimony
. Throug hout the trial, Shalash maintained that he dealt only in leg itimate goods a

nd that he
was una war e that the mer chandise that he purc hased or sold was stolen. He te stified that he obtained the merc handise pe rsonally or throug h other seller s and that he w as ab l e t o generate a profit by purc ha sin g the ite ms t

hr ou g h r e ta ile rs ’ “ tw o- fo r- on e ” sa le s. He a dd e d th a t he save d th e re c e ipt s from these purcha ses. The U nited States introduced the ba nk rec ords as e vidence demonstrating that the re venue g ener ated by

S&A Wholesaler s could not possibly have come fr om leg itimate sources alone. Ag ent Moutz’s testim ony was ther efor e re levant and pr operly admitted into evidence
. V. Four th, Shalash contends the dist ri ct court abused its discretion in admitting Ag ent Janco sk o’ s te sti mon

y tha t th e F B Iha d b e g un

inv e sti g a tin g Sha la shwh ile c on du c tin g a se pa rateNo. 05-6946

Un ite d S tat es v . S ha las h

- 11 - criminal investig ation of his rel at i v es . Shalash agues that this testimony is highly prejudicia l and
u lt im a te ly

ir r e le v an t b e c a

u s e h e w a s n e v e r

indic te d f o r an y e ar li e r a ll e g e d c r im in a l c o n d

u c t. We disag ree . Acc ording to Ag ent J ancosko, inve stigation of Adnan Shalash be g an in 2001. Simil arly , as stated above , I

brahim Shal ash testified that Adna n rec eived stolen g oods from family members beg inning as ear ly as 2001. Be cause Count 13 of the I ndictment alleg es that Adna n Shalash rec eived and possessed sto l en go o d s fr o m 2 0 0 1 o n wa rd s , t es t i m o n y re gar d i n g i n v es t i gat i o no f t h i s t i m e p eriod was dire ctly

rele vant. Fur

ther, this evidenc e demonstrated that the United States ha d a log ical re ason to c on du c t a st ing op e ratio n a g a ins t Sh a la sh , a nd thu s th e un de rc ov e r o pe ratio n d id n ot c on sti tut e entra pment. Acc ording ly , we hold that the district cour t did not err in admitting this testimony
. V I. Shalash additionally

asser ts that if this court finds that none of the above a rg uments warr ant
a new trial, then the c umulative eff ect of the alleg ed er

rors wa rra nts reversal of his conviction. I ndividual error s may

be dee med har

mless when viewe d in isolation, but may , in the ag g reg ate, amount to a

n unfair trial and a

denial of due proce ss. United States v. Park er , 9 97 F .2 d 2 19 , 2 21 (6 th Cir. 1993). We have c autioned that “‘ a cumulative- err or ana ly sis should evaluate only the ef fec t of matters determined t o be error, not the c umulative eff ect of non-er rors.’” Un ite d Sta te

s v . Tr uji llo , 3 7 6 F. 3 d 5 9 3 , 6 1 4 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Un ite d S tates v . R iv e ra , 900 F.2d 1462, 1471 (10th Cir. 19 90 )) ; se e als o Campbell v. United States , 364 F.3d 727, 736 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (finding that cumulative ef

fec t of non-er

rors c annot amount to de privation of due proc ess in ineffe ctive assistanc eNo. 05-6946

Un ite d S tat es v . S ha las h

- 12 - of counse l context) (citation and interna l quotation omit ted). B eca use we have he ld that none of the arguments raised by

Shalash constitute err or, there is no cumulative err or to be a ddresse d. V II. F ina lly , Sh a la shc on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt imp ro pe rl y de te rm ine d the a mou nt he ow e d in restitution by

calc ulating the amount based on the g ross proce eds of his transa ctions, rather than on the ne t inc ome he re c e ive d a s a re su lt of the tr a ns a c tio ns . We la c k jur isd ic tio n to c on si der t his
argume nt. Shalash’s ar g uments conce rning the prope r re stitut ion det er m i n ation actua lly conce rn the calc ulations of the mag istrate judge, not the district court. The mag istrate judg e ente red its Report and Rec ommendation on J une 19, 2006. This rec ommendation was a dopted by the district court on Fe bruar y 16, 2007, afte r Shalash filed the instant appea l. We lack jurisdict i o n to consider the mag istrate judg e’s Repor

t and Recommendation on appeal be cause it is not a fina l order. Am br os e v. W elch , 7 29 F .2 d 1 08 4, 10 85 (6 th C ir . 1 98 4) ; se e als o W illiams v. Detro i t W

a t er &Sewerage Dep’ t , No. 83-1746, 1985 WL13014 at *1 (6th Ci r. M ar . 1 8 , 1985) (unpublished). Mor eover , Shalash has appe aled the district court’s preliminary order of forfeiture in a separate appea l, No. 07- 5257. Preliminary

order s of forfeiture are final and appea lable orde rs. United States v. Christunas , 126 F.3d 765, 768 ( 6th Cir. 1997). V III
. F or the re a so ns state d a

bo ve , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.