alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BRAINTECH, INC., a Nevada corporation, 

 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 

v. 

ADIL SHAFI, an individual, 

 Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, 

v. 

FREDERICK WEIDINGER, an individual, 

 Counterclaim Defendant. 

_____________________________________/ 

Case No. 09-10454 

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan 

LETTERS ROGATORY

 The People of the United States of America, to the Appropriate Judicial Authority 

in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 

GREETINGS: 

WHEREAS, a certain action is pending in the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Michigan, in which BRAINTECH is Plaintiff1

 and Adil Shafi, a resident 

 

1

 Braintech Inc., was dismissed from the case by order dated June 3, 2010, but remains a party to the 

case on the counterclaim of Defendant Shafi. 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 55 Filed 10/26/10 Page 1 of 3
2

of the State of Michigan, is a Defendant, and Frederick Weidinger is an additional party 

counterclaim defendant and a resident of the State of Virginia. 

 WHEREAS, it having been made known to us that the testimony of the following 

witness of the Province of British Columbia, Canada, to-wit: Remus Boca, 2 Fullerton 

Avenue, North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V7P 3G4, is necessary for use at 

the trial of the issues in said action and without the testimony of whom justice cannot be 

completely done between the parties; 

WE, THEREFORE REQUEST that in furtherance of justice, you will cause said 

witnesses, to appear before the person authorized to administer oaths at the offices of 

Ellis Business Lawyers, #440-319 West Pender Street, Vancouver, BC, V6B 1T3, or 

some other place as agreed by the parties, at a precise time and place by you to be fixed, 

and there to answer, under oaths or affirmations, the questions, document requests and 

interrogatories to be propounded by counsel for the respective parties and said 

questions and answers to be committed and reduced to writing, and thereafter duly 

signed by said witnesses under oath or affirmation, and thereafter return said deposition 

to us under cover, duly closed and sealed, postage prepaid, together with these 

presents, addressed to David J. Weaver, Clerk of the Court, United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Michigan, Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette 

Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan, United States of America 48226, with copies to counsel 

for the parties. 

And we shall be ready and willing to do the same for you in a similar case when 

required. 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 55 Filed 10/26/10 Page 2 of 3
3

WITNESS the Honorable Victoria A. Roberts, United States District Court Judge 

for the Eastern District of Michigan, United States of America, on this 25 day of October, 

2010. 

S/Victoria A. Roberts

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

United States District Court Judge 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 55 Filed 10/26/10 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRAINTECH, INC., a Nevada corporation,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v.

ADIL SHAFI, an individual,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff,

v.

FREDERICK WEIDINGER, an individual,

Counterclaim Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 09-10454

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan

LETTERS ROGATORY

The People of the United States of America, to the Appropriate Judicial Authority

in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

GREETINGS:

WHEREAS, a certain action is pending in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Michigan, in which BRAINTECH is Plaintiff

1

and Adil Shafi, a resident

1

Braintech Inc., was dismissed from the case by order dated June 3, 2010, but remains a party to the

case on the counterclaim of Defendant Shafi.

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 45 Filed 10/12/10 Page 1 of 3
2

of the State of Michigan, is a Defendant, and Frederick Weidinger is an additional party

counterclaim defendant and a resident of the State of Virginia.

WHEREAS, it having been made known to us that the testimony of the following

witness of the Province of British Columbia, Canada, to-wit: Heather Greenlay, a

resident of British Columbia, Canada, is necessary for use at the trial of the issues in

said action and without the testimony of whom justice cannot be completely done

between the parties;

WE, THEREFORE REQUEST that in furtherance of justice, you will cause said

witnesses, to appear before the person authorized to administer oaths at the offices of

Ellis Business Lawyers #440-319 West Pender Street, Vancouver, BC, V6B 1T3, or some

other place as agreed by the parties, at a precise time and place by you to be fixed, and

there to answer, under oaths or affirmations, the questions, document requests and

interrogatories to be propounded by counsel for the respective parties and said

questions and answers to be committed and reduced to writing, and thereafter duly

signed by said witnesses under oath or affirmation, and thereafter return said deposition

to us under cover, duly closed and sealed, postage prepaid, together with these

presents, addressed to David J. Weaver, Clerk of the Court, United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Michigan, Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette

Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan, United States of America 48226, with copies to counsel

for the parties.

And we shall be ready and willing to do the same for you in a similar case when

required.

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 45 Filed 10/12/10 Page 2 of 3
3

WITNESS the Honorable Victoria A. Roberts, United States District Court Judge

for the Eastern District of Michigan, United States of America, on this ___ day of

October, 2010.

_______________________________

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Court Judge

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 45 Filed 10/12/10 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36286]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17230]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 93-AWP-4]


Alteration of Jet Routes J-86 and J-92; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final rule published in the Federal 
Register on June 13, 1996 (Airspace Docket No. 93-AWP-4). In the 
airspace designation of Jet Route 86 (J-86), effective August 15, 1996, 
erroneously showed ``Miami, FL'' as the ending point for J-86. This 
action corrects the definition of J-86 by changing the ending point to 
read ``Dolphin, FL.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, August 15, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Nelson, Airspace and Rules 
Division, ATA-400, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Register Document 96-15062, Airspace 
Docket No. 93-AWP-4, published on June 13, 1996 (61 FR 29938), extended 
J-86 and realigned J-92 to enhance traffic flows and reduce controller 
workload. However, in the June 13 publication the description for J-86 
erroneously indicated Miami, FL as the ending point for J-86. This 
action corrects that error.

Correction of Final Rule


Sec. 71.1  [Corrected]

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the 
airspace designation for J-86, published in the Federal Register on 
June 13, 1996 (61 FR 29939); Federal Register Document 96-15062, Column 
1) is corrected to read as follows:
* * * * *

J-86  [Revised]

    From Beatty, NV; INT Beatty 131 deg. and Boulder City, NV, 
284 deg. radials; Boulder City; Peach Springs, AZ; Winslow, AZ; El 
Paso, TX; Fort Stockton, TX; Junction, TX; Austin, TX; Humble, TX; 
Leeville, LA; INT Leeville 104 deg. and Sarasota, FL, 286 deg. 
radials; Sarasota; INT Sarasota 103 deg. and La Belle, FL, 313 deg. 
radials; La Belle; to Dolphin, FL.
* * * * *
    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 28, 1996.
Nancy B. Kalinowski,
Acting Program Director for Air Traffic Airspace Management.
[FR Doc. 96-17230 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                              AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                   SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of TRB Systems International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Byung
Yim, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

	(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

	(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date:  September 20, 2006


/s/ Byung Yim
------------------------------------
Byung Yim
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer)
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 __________________________

LAWRENCE M. FALLAT, DPM,

Plaintiff,

v

CRYOMED, LLC, a Delaware Limited 

Liability Company,

Defendant.

Case No. 08-14875

HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

David L. Steinberg (P32247)

THAV, GROSS, STEINWAY & BENNETT, P.C.

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff

30150 Telegraph Road, Suite 444

Bingham Farms, MI 48025

(248) 645-1700

dsteinberg@thavgross.com

Thomas E. Anderson (P32564)

Mark D. Schneider (P55253)

GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON &

CITKOWSKI, P.C.

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff

2701 Troy Center Drive, Suite 330

Troy, MI 48084

(248) 647-6000

tanderson@patlaw.com

mschneider@patlaw.com

Steve J. Sielatycki (P66751)

LAW OFFICE OF STEVE SIELATYCKI

Counsel for Defendant

516 Whites Road, Suite 4

Kalamazoo, MI 49008

(269) 978-2525

sielatycki@gmail.com

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Defendant Cryomed, LLC (“Defendant” or “Cryomed”), by and through its attorney, 

Steve J. Sielatycki, states for its Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction as 

follows:

2:08-cv-14875-LPZ-MKM Doc # 14 Filed 04/10/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 138
2

Defendant is a manufacturer of cryosurgical devices used by hospitals to treat neuromas 

in addition to a myriad of other medical techniques. Such cryosurgical devices and techniques 

have been used in the medical field for over 20 years. Apparently, Plaintiff believes it has 

acquired a patent covering these obvious techniques that date back to well before Plaintiff's 

alleged "invention" of the techniques. Yet this patent is certainly invalid.

Plaintiff now asks this Court to grant a preliminary injunction despite the fact that, as the 

Court has already ruled, "adequate remedies exist at law." Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for 

Temporary Restraining Order, at 4. Despite this, Plaintiff asks this Court for a drastic remedy, 

specifically, the cessation of production and distribution of medical treatment devices that are 

used by hospitals and doctors throughout the country to treat patients using a myriad of medical 

techniques that are wholly unrelated to Plaintiff's alleged patent.

In light of these facts, and for the reasons articulated below, Defendant respectfully 

requests that this Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICE OF STEVE SIELATYCKI

Dated: April 10, 2009 By: _s/Steve Sielatycki__________________

Steve J. Sielatycki (P66751)

Attorney for Defendant

BUSINESS ADDRESS:

516 Whites Road, Suite 4

Kalamazoo, MI 49008

(269) 978-2525

sielatycki@gmail.com

2:08-cv-14875-LPZ-MKM Doc # 14 Filed 04/10/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 139
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Julio Cesar Flores, Jr., * From the County Court at Law

 of Erath County

 Trial Court No. 45,713.

Vs. No. 11-16-00016-CR * January 19, 2018

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J.

 (Panel consists of: Willson, J.,

 Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

 by assignment)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that 

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08-CR-20601

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

PAUL HOGAN (D-18),

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

GOVERNMENT AGENTS TO RETAIN ROUGH NOTES [DOC. 180]

Defendant Paul Hogan filed this motion for government agents to retain and

preserve all rough notes taken as part of their investigation notwithstanding the fact that

the contents of said notes are now or may later be incorporated in official records or

reports. The stated purpose of defendant’s motion is to place the government on notice

that any destruction of their rough notes cannot be in good faith as of the time of the

filing of the motion. The government has not filed a response to defendant’s motion. 

Now, therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion for retention of rough notes is

GRANTED.

Dated: September 17, 2009

S/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

September 17, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:08-cr-20601-GCS-PJK ECF No. 197, PageID.639 Filed 09/17/09 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

LINDA L. CHEEKS, 

Plaintiff,

Civil No. 08-15183

Hon. John Feikens 

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. 

________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, filed on

11/30/2009, and noted that no objections were filed by either party, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report is accepted and entered as the findings and

conclusions of this court. 

s/John Feikens 

John Feikens

United States District Judge

Dated: December 23, 2009

2:08-cv-15183-JF-RSW Doc # 16 Filed 12/23/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 387
2

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of record

by electronic means or U.S. Mail on December 23,

2009.

s/Carol Cohron 

Deputy Clerk

2:08-cv-15183-JF-RSW Doc # 16 Filed 12/23/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 388
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Evolution Resources, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended April 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christopher P. Chambers, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1.

The Report fully complies with requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



| |                                                                 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Christopher P. Chambers                                     
| | Christopher P. Chambers                                         
| | Title: Executive Vice President and
Principal Accounting Officer



July 27, 2009
EXHIBIT 32.1

          Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted
           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Kirshner Entertainment & Technologies,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Gary Verdier, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





Date: March 31, 2005                       /S/ Gary Verdier
                                         ----------------------------
                                         Gary Verdier
                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                         (Principal Executive Officer)
H. R. 3632

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to repeal the requirement for

annual resident review for nursing facilities under the Medicaid program and

to require resident reviews for mentally ill or mentally retarded residents when

there is a significant change in physical or mental condition.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR ANNUAL RESIDENT

REVIEW FOR MENTALLY ILL AND MENTALLY RETARDED

NURSING FACILITY RESIDENTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1919(e)(7) of the Social Security Act

(42 U.S.C. 1396r(e)(7)) is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (B)—

(A) by striking ‘‘ANNUAL’’ in the heading, and

(B) by striking clause (iii); and

(2) in subparagraph (D)(i), by striking ‘‘ANNUAL’’ in the

heading.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by subsection

(a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR REVIEW IN CASE OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGE

IN PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITION OF MENTALLY ILL

OR MENTALLY RETARDED NURSING FACILITY

RESIDENTS.

(a) REQUIREMENT FOR NOTIFICATION OF STATE AUTHORITY.—

Section 1919(b)(3)(E) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

1396r(b)(3)(E)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘In addition, a nursing facility shall notify the State mental health

authority or State mental retardation or developmental disability

authority, as applicable, promptly after a significant change in

the physical or mental condition of a resident who is mentally

ill or mentally retarded.’’.

(b) REQUIREMENT FOR REVIEW.—Section 1919(e)(7)(B) of such

Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r(e)(7)(B)), as amended by section 1(a)(1), is

amended by inserting after clause (ii) the following new clause:
H. R. 3632—2

‘‘(iii) REVIEW REQUIRED UPON CHANGE IN

RESIDENT’S CONDITION.—A review and determination

under clause (i) or (ii) must be conducted promptly

after a nursing facility has notified the State mental

health authority or State mental retardation or

developmental disability authority, as applicable,

under subsection (b)(3)(E) with respect to a mentally

ill or mentally retarded resident, that there has been

a significant change in the resident’s physical or mental

condition.’’.

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section

shall apply to changes in physical or mental condition occurring

on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNUM INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-CV-10045

SHERYL GARY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF UNUM INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

On January 7, 2009, Plaintiff UNUM Insurance Company of America initiated this

interpleader action against Defendant Sheryl Gary, personal representative of the estate

of Rose Ann Cobb, and Defendant Mark Cobb, personal representative of the estate of

David I. Cobb. Plaintiff sought to deposit the insurance funds at issue in this matter with

the court and interplead Defendants. On June 11, 2009, the court granted Plaintiff’s

motion to deposit funds and ordered Plaintiff to file notice once it had deposited the

funds with the court. On June 15, 2009, Plaintiff filed notice that it had deposited the

insurance funds with the court. Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff UNUM Insurance Company of America is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 24, 2009

2:09-cv-10045-RHC-PJK Doc # 17 Filed 06/24/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 137
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\09-10045.UNUM.Order.Dismissal.ljd.wpd 2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, June 24, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-10045-RHC-PJK Doc # 17 Filed 06/24/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 138
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08-CR-20601

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

SAM DAVIS KEMERKO, JR. (D-7),

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO SEVER WITHOUT PREJUDICE [DOC. 183]

Defendant Sam Davis Kemerko filed this motion requesting that he be severed

from the other 21 co-defendants. Based on the discovery provided so far, defendant

has failed to show that he will suffer prejudice if the Court does not sever. Fed.R.Crim.

P. 14. Now, therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to sever is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Dated: September 17, 2009

S/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

September 17, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk

2:08-cr-20601-GCS-PJK Doc # 196 Filed 09/17/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 638
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Case No: 08-CR-20486-02

v.

SAMUEL LIVINGSTON,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT LIVINGSTON’S 

APPEAL OF DETENTION ORDER

This matter has come before the court for a hearing on September 25, 2008 as to

defendant’s appeal from Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s detention order entered on

September 9, 2008. For the reasons fully stated on the record, the appeal is DENIED

and the detention order is AFFIRMED.

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the US Marshals to be held

pending trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 30, 2008

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, September 30, 2008, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522