FILED UNDER SEAL 

.' IE' IJ fL
 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURjf"' DEC 07··· Ir')

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN C!...J::: 2lJ{Jg / / 

SOUTHERN DIVISION U.S D'RK's o' l,,/

£. . 1S"'Fl 1f:'f:IC 

FILED UNDER SEAL A.S"'~Fitv~~6COu~.,.

'ltIGJVv UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

CRIMINAL NO. 09-20025 

vs. HON. AVERN COHN 

D-4 SAMUEL L. RIDDLE, JR., 

Defendant. __________. 1 

UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
 

TO PRECLUDE EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS
 

BY PARTIES OR THEIR COUNSEL
 

The United States ofAmerica, by and through its attorneys, Robert Cares and David 

A. Gardey, Assistant United States Attorneys, for the Eastern District ofMichigan, moves 

for a protective order precluding extrajudicial statements about the case by parties or their 

counsel which a reasonable person would believe could be publicly disseminated. 

Since approximately June 1, 2009, Mr. Riddle has been making statements in the 

media, including newspaper, television, radio, and the internet, in the Detroit area, all of 

which seek to undermine the validity ofthe government's investigation and prosecution of 

him, as well as this Court's fairness. In any prosecution, wide dissemination ofextrajudicial 

comments by a party threatens the basic tenet that criminal trials should be decided by 

impartial jurors who know as little as possible about the case. Gentile v. State Bar of 

Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1070 (1990). In this prosecution, Mr. Riddle is using his statements 

to the media and over the internet to broadcast claims that are inflammatory, false, 

unsupported by any shred of actual eVidence, and are in any event inadmissible at trial. 

Against the backdrop ofhis interviews and numerous statementsto print, internet, radio, and 

Case 2:09-cr-20025-AC-MAR Document 79 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 1 of 17
,­

television, Mr. Riddle's statements to the media threaten the fair trial rights of the 

government. The Court has an affirmative Constitutional duty to guard against prejudicial 

pretrial publicity. Accordingly, the government respectfully requests that the Court enter a 

protective order that precludes extrajudicial statements about the merits of the case by the 

parties or their attorneys. 

The government sought and was denied concurrence in this motion by defendant 

Riddle. 

For these reasons, which are supported by the attached brief, the United States asks 

that its motion to preclude extrajudicial statements be granted. A copy of a proposed order 

will be submitted contemporaneously to the Court. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ey 

·DAVID~ U.S. Department of Justice 

211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001 

Detroit, Michigan 48226-3211 

Telephone: (313) 226-9591 

DATED: December 4, 2009 

2
 

Case 2:09-cr-20025-AC-MAR Document 79 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 2 of 17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
 

SOUTHERN DIVISION
 

FILED UNDER SEAL
 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

CRIMINAL NO. 09-20025 

vs. HON. AVERN COHN 

D-4 SAMUEL L. RIDDLE, JR., 

Defendant. 

--~---------------,/

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR A
 

PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PRECLUDE EXTRAJUDICIAL
 

STATEMENTS BY PARTIES OR THEIR COUNSEL
 

TERRENCE BERG 

United States Attorney 

ROBERT CARES 

Assistant United States Attorney 

211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001 

Detroit, MI 48226 

Phone: (313) 226-9736 

E-Mail: robert.cares@usdoj.gov 

DAVID A. GARDEY (P48990) 

Assistant United States Attorney 

211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001 

Detroit, MI 48226 

Phone: (313) 226-9591 

E-Mail: David.Gardey@usdoj.gov 

Case 2:09-cr-20025-AC-MAR Document 79 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 3 of 17
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . .. 111
 

STATEMENT OF ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. IV
 

I.	 INTRODUCTION 1
 

II.	 ARGUMENT , 1
 

A.	 Mr. Riddle's Extrajudicial Statements Threaten to
 

Prejudice the Fair Trial Rights ofthe Government 2
 

1.	 Mr. Riddle's Efforts to Color the Jury's
 

Perception OfThis Case 2
 

2.	 There Is A Substantial Likelihood That Mr. Riddle's
 

Extrajudicial Statements May Prejudice Himself and
 

A Defendant In A Related Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 

3.	 Mr. Riddle's Extrajudicial Statements
 

May Prejudice the Government 6
 

B.	 The Court Has An Affirmative Constitutional Duty to Impose a
 

Protective Order to Protect the Fair Trial Rights ofMr. Riddle's
 

Co-Defendant and the Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
 

C.	 The Proposed Protective Order Is
 

Sufficiently Narrowly Tailored 9
 

III. CONCLUSION 10
 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 11
 

11 

Case 2:09-cr-20025-AC-MAR Document 79 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 4 of 17
TABLE OF CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES 

Gentile v. Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991)
 

Shepard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966)
 

United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2000)
 

United States v. Fieger,2008 WL 659767 (E.D. Mich. March 11,2008)
 

United States v. Koubriti, 307 F. Supp.2d 891 (E.D. Mich. 2004)
 

iii 

Case 2:09-cr-20025-AC-MAR Document 79 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 5 of 17
STATEMENT OF ISSUES 

The issues presented by this motion are as follows: 

1.	 Whether Mr. Riddle's extrajudicial statements - including statements to newspapers, television, radio, and the internet - are substantially likely to materially 

prejudice the fair trial rights of the government. 

2.	 Whether a protective order proscribing extrajudicial statements, as further described herein, is sufficiently narrowly tailored to constitute a pennissible prior 

restraint on the parties' speech. 

IV 

Case 2:09-cr-20025-AC-MAR Document 79 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 6 of 17
I. INTRODUCTION 

Since learning of the government's intent to seek an Indictment against him in the 

spring of 2009, defendant Samuel L. Riddle, Jr. has inundated the Detroit area with claims 

about the nature and conduct of the government's investigation and prosecution which are 

not only false, they are not admissible before the jury. He has made extrajudicial statements 

to the print, radio, andtelevision news media, as well as statements over the internet. He has 

repeatedly given interviews with members of the news media about the investigation and 

prosecution. His efforts threaten to prejudice the jury pool and affect the right to a fair trial 

of the government. Accordingly, the government requests that the Court enter a protective 

order preventing all parties to this litigation from making extrajudicial statements about this 

case that a reasonable person would believe could be publicly disseminated. 

II. ARGUMENT 

"[T]he theory upon which our criminal justice system is founded [is that] the outcome 

of a criminal trial is to be decided by impartial jurors, who know as little as possible ofthe 

case, based on, material admitted into evidence before them in a court proceeding. 

Extrajudicial comments on, or discussion of, evidence which might never be admitted at trial 

... obviously threaten to undermine this basic tenet." Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 

U.S. 1030, 1070 (1991). 

For more than six months, Mr. Riddle has sustained a campaign aimed at convincing 

the venire pool that his prosecution is politically motivated and without basis in fact. Not 

only does this campaign undermine the tenet that potential jurors should know as little as 

possible about a case, it also puts before the venire pool arguments and claims that could 

never be admitted' at trial. For that reason, this campaign must stop. 

1 

Case 2:09-cr-20025-AC-MAR Document 79 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 7 of 17
A.	 Mr. Riddle's Extrajudicial Statements Threaten to
 

Prejudice the Fair Trial Rights of the Government
 

1.	 Mr. Riddle's Efforts to Color the Jury's 

Perception Of This Case ' 

Since approximately June 2009, Mr. Riddle began making extrajudicial statements 

regarding this investigation and prosecution. For example, in a June 29,2009 article in The 

DetroitFree Press, Mr. Riddle made extensive and detailed statements to newspaperreporters 

about payments that Mr. Riddle received from a Detroit businessman, as well as other deals 

that are the subject ofthe Indictment in this case or that are part ofthe relevant evidence in 

this case. The Detroit Free Press, "Ex-Aide: Conyers Took Cash, Jewelry, Riddle Details 

Questionable Transactions She Brokered," June 29, 2009 at 1A. 

In June and July 2009, in the time leading up to the unsealing of the Indictment 

against him, Mr. Riddle granted extensive interviews with television and radio reporters 

where he made detailed statements about the government's investigation. For example, on 

July 1,2009, Mr. Riddle appeared for an interview with Paul W. Smith on the radio on WJRAM. During that interview, Mr. Riddle criticized the government and the FBI for failing to 

"go after the enablers of corruption, like the Carlyle Synagro group," and instead for 

pursuing "salacious" allegations. In a different radio interview conducted on June 17,2009, 

Mr. Riddle also criticized the government's prosecution saying that "you also have to 

understand the motivations ofthe Department ofJustice. You know this is a department of 

justice that is one of the most political in the nation." The Mitch Alborn Show, WJR-AM, 

June 17,2009. Mr. Riddle also granted interviews with television reporters where he made 

detailed statements commenting on the investigation of him. See. e.g., "Let It Rip," 

Interview of Samuel Riddle by Huel Perkins, WJBK-Fox 2, June 18,2009 (Riddle denying 

2
 

Case 2:09-cr-20025-AC-MAR Document 79 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 8 of 17
being a go-between or bagman on the Synagro deal; stating that prosecution of him is 

political in nature with Congresswoman Carolyn Kilpatrick directing the prosecution based 

on plea offers). 

Mr. Riddle has made other statements to the media claiming that prosecutions by the 

U.S. Attorney's Office in this district are based on political calculations. For example, on 

July 1, 2009, Mr. Riddle was quoted in The Detroit Free Press saying that '''I'm firmly 

convinced that there are elements in the U.S. Attorney's Office who would love to make a 

case against anyone whose last name is Conyers, iffor no other reason than to embarrass the 

chairman ofthe U.S. House Judiciary Committee,' Riddle said. He added: 'Councilwoman 

Conyers can do that on her own without the assistance ofthe FBI. She's demonstrated that 

time and time again.'" Id. 

Since the indictment against him was unsealed on July 15, 2009, Mr. Riddle has 

continued to make extrajudicial statements that falsely characterize the prosecution. For 

example, when the Indictment was unsealed, Mr. Riddle stated, "'I am not going to be the 

fall guy.'" The Detroit News, "Riddle Vows 'Tooth and Nail' Court Fight," July 16,2009 

at 17A. Mr. Riddle also stated, "'my level of behavior did not reach that of breaking the 

law.'" Id. According the article, "Riddle unleashed a diatribe against federal authorities and 

Synagro Technologies Inc." Id. "'The culture of corruption will go nowhere until they go 

after the enablers of corruption like Carlyle-Synagro Group,' Riddle said." Id.; see also 

Interview of Samuel Riddle by Steve Wilson, WXYZ-TV, July 15, 2009 ("I believe in my 

heart that as an independent consultant that my behavior has not breached or broken the law. 

I believe what I have done is no different than aggressive lobbying by consultants and 

lobbyists all over this nation that don't break the law."). 

3 

Case 2:09-cr-20025-AC-MAR Document 79 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 9 of 17
Mr. Riddle has not stopped making extrajudicial statements in the intervening months 

since his Indictment. For example, on August 6, 2009, Mr. Riddle made statements to 

newspaper reporters. Mr. Riddle stated: "I've never bribed Lattimore ... just because 

(Lattimore) thinks he's guilty ofsomething does not diminish my innocence." The Detroit 

News, "Lattimore Pleads Guilty, Loses Seat," August 6,2009. In response to a question as 

to whether he ever paid Lattimore, Mr. Riddle stated that "he 'helped with some community 

projects. '" Id. 

Mr. Riddle also has made statements about the case disseminated over the internet. 

For example, on December 1,2009, Mr. Riddle stated over the internet: "Going To Fed Court 

Today. Drop Dead Date For Me To Say. 'No Deal' & Go To Trial. Hate This Crap But .. 

Gotta Deal With It." Mr. Riddle also stated in response to the Court's request that Mr. 

Riddle limit his extrajudicial comments: "Thank God the U.S. Constitution doesn't shut its 

doors south of 8 Mile." Also in response to the Court's request about making extrajudicial 

comments~ Mr. Riddle posted the following statement over the internet: "They Stop Me From 

Tweeting -- You Are Next -- Tweet On KMA." In the vernacular of the internet, "KMA" 

means "Kiss My Ass." Also over the internet, Mr. Riddle posted: "I will Go Straight To Jail 

Before I Get OffThis Keyboard -- IfThey Stop Me from Tweeting Or FaceBooking You Are 

Next." Obviously, these statements would lead jurors to conclude that the Court is unfairly 

attempting to restrict the rights of Mr. Riddle and to deprive him of a fair trial, besides 

spreading contempt for the Court. 

Most recently, Mr. Riddle attacked the Court in statements made to The Detroit News. 

In a December 3, 2009 story, the newspaper reported that Mr. Riddle stated: '''It's not fair,' 

Riddle said Wednesday. 'He's giving me less time to prepare for the case than he is giving 

4 

Case 2:09-cr-20025-AC-MAR Document 79 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 10 of 17
to sentence (former Detroit City Councilwoman) Monica Conyers,' a co-defendant in the 

case. Conyers pleaded guilty this summer and awaits sentencing." Mr. Riddle added: "'I 

may well be being denied the right to effective counsel in terms of case preparation.'" A 

perspective juror reading Mr. Riddle's statement would be left with the impression that any 

trial against Mr. Riddle would be unfair because of the purportedly unfair lack of time 

allowed to Mr. Riddle and his defense team for trial preparation. 

In making extnuudicial comments, Mr. Riddle ignores the fact that "'Legal trials are 

not like elections, to be won through the use of the meeting-hall, the radio, and the 

newspaper.'" Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1070 (quoting Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 242, 271 

(1941». 

2.	 There Is A Substantial Likelihood That Mr. Riddle's 

Extrajudicial Statements May Prejudice Himself and 

A Defendant In A Related Case 

The beneficiaries ofa court's efforts to limit extrajudicial comments "include not only 

the defendant in a given trial, but other defendants as well, such as co-defendants in the same 

case or defendants in related cases ... whose fair trial rights might be prejudiced by the 

extrajudicial statements of other trial participants." United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415, 

424 (5th Cir. 2000). 

While Mr. Riddle attempts to cast the government in a negative light, skeptical 

viewers might reject Mr. Riddle's self-serving comments and develop a view that is 

prejudiced against him and his co-defendant in a related case, Mary Waters. For example, 

after the two Indictments were unsealed against Mr. Riddle, Mr. Riddle's attorney asserted 

that "Riddle believes the only thing that Mary Waters did wrong'was to be with him and that 

the government is punishing her for that very reason." The Detroit Free Press, "Lawyer: 

5
 

Case 2:09-cr-20025-AC-MAR Document 79 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 11 of 17
Riddle Ready to Fight," July 16, 2009 at 8A. This echoed statements made by Mr. Riddle 

to newspaper reporters. The Detroit Free Press, "FBI Investigation Turns to Southfield 

Store's Expansion," June 5, 2009 ("Riddle also defended Waters, saying, 'Mary's only crime 

is knowing me. "'). In the end, all parties, including Mr. Riddle and Ms. Waters, stand to lose 

ifmembers ofthe jury decide the case on statements or claims other than those admitted into 

evidence. Ms. Waters' right to a fair trial by impartial jurors outweighs Mr. Riddle's right 

to criticize the prosecution against him now that he is a party to the litigation. See Gentile, 

501 U.S. at 1075 (holding that few, if any, constitutional rights are more important than the 

right to be tried by an impartial jury); Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20,32-33 n. 

18 (1984) ("Although litigants do not surrender their First Amendment rights at the 

courthouse door, those rights may be subordinated to other interests that arise in this 

setting."). Accordingly, the Court should grant a protective order. 

3.	 Mr. Riddle's Extrajudicial Statements 

May Prejudice the Government 

The government, as the representative ofthe people, has a right to a fair and impartial 

trial. United States v. Ford, 830 F.2d 596, 603 (6th Cir. 1987) (Krupansky, J. concurring). 

"The public has an overriding interest that justice be done in a controversy between the 

government and individuals and has the right to demand and expect 'fair trials designed to 

end in just judgments.'" United States v. Tijerina, 412 F.2d 661, 666 (lOth Cir. 1969) 

(quoting Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 689 (1949)). 

The claims made by Mr. Riddle are politically charged. Through his statements, Mr. 

Riddle claims that the prosecutors are motivated by politics and by protecting the rich and 

well connected, and that the Court is unfairly forcing him to trial before he is ready. Ifthere 

6
 

Case 2:09-cr-20025-AC-MAR Document 79 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 12 of 17
were any truth to them, the government would be just as offended as Mr. Riddle claims to 

be. Of course, the facts surrounding this prosecution contravene his self-serving claims. 

Members ofthe venire pool, however, do not have access to the pleadings, exhibits, and oral 

arguments that refute Mr. Riddle's claims. Nor will the eventual jurors ever have access to 

the facts concerning these claims. Mr. Riddle is therefore placing allegations before the 

eventual jury to which the jury should never be exposed, and under circumstances when the. 

jury will never have the ability fairly to weigh the reliability ofthose allegations. Rather, all 

they see, on a repeated basis, are the statements of Mr. Riddle on television, radio, in 

newspapers, and over the internet. 

There is a real danger that potential jurors, who have heard only Mr. Riddle's claims 

during the proceeding six months, will have difficulty setting aside those claims and deciding 

this case based upon the evidence at trial. Only a protective order entered now can help 

minimize this danger, especially in the weeks that remain before a jury is empaneled. 

B.	 The Court Has An Affirmative Constitutional Duty to Impose a 

Protective Order to Protect the Fair Trial Rights of Mr. Riddle's 

Co-Defendant and the Government 

Trial courts have "an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of 

prejudicial pretrial publicity." Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979); see also 

Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981) ("Trial courts must be especially vigilant to guard 

against any impairment ofthe defendant's right to a verdict based solely upon the evidence 

and the relevant law."); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966) (holding that "The 

Court must take such steps by rule and regulation that will protect their processes from 

prejudicial outside interferences. Neither prosecutors, counsel for defense, the accused, [or] 

witnesses ... should be permitted to frustrate its function."). 

7 

Case 2:09-cr-20025-AC-MAR Document 79 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 13 of 17
This Court should not allow Mr. Riddle's extrajudicial statements to continue in the 

hopes ofidentifying and remedying any prejudice at the trial through voir dire, sequestration, 

change ofvenue, or other tools. "[T]he cure lies in those remedial measures that will prevent 

the prejudice at its inception." Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 363. To allow the parties to engage in 

extrajudicial comments, in the hope that any prejudice can be identified and neutralized at 

trial, "may be tantamount to closing the barn door after the horses are out." United States v. 

Koubriti, 307 F. Supp.2d 891, 900 (E.D. Mich. 2004). "Extensive voir dire may not be able 

to filter out all ofthe effects ofpretrial publicity," Gentile, 501 U.S. 1030, 1075, especially 

when the pretrial publicity has been as persistent as have Mr. Riddle's efforts here. 

The speech ofa defendant, as well as his attorneys, may be limited upon a finding that 

his extrajudicial statements are substantially likely to materially prejudice fair trial rights. 

Koubriti, 307 F. Supp.2d at 899; see also United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d415, 423 (5th Cir. 

2000) (same as to protective order limiting speech by defendants); In re Russell, 726 F.2d 

1007, 1010-1011 (4th Cir. 1984) (same as to protective order limiting speech by witnesses); 

United States v. Calabrese, 2007 WL 2075630 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (same as to protective order 

limiting speech by all parties). Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that trial 

courts may limit the speech ofparties to a litigation "where necessary to ensure a fair trial." 

Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1073; see also United States v. Sheppard, 384 U.S. 333,362 (1966) (the 

"trial court might well [proscribe] extrajudicial statements by any lawyer, party, witness or 

court official ... concerning the merits ofthe case."). 

Based on his claimed experience as a public relations flack, Mr. Riddle has made an 

aggressive effort to influence the opinions ofprospective jurors by attacking the motivations 

of the prosecutors and the fairness ofthe Court. If Mr. Riddle is permitted to continue his 

8
 

Case 2:09-cr-20025-AC-MAR Document 79 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 14 of 17
efforts, that is tantamount to holding that there are no limits on a litigant's ability to distort 

the trial process, so long as the distortion takes place outside the courtroom walls when trial 

is not in session. The First Amendment cannot and does not compel such a result. 

C.	 The Proposed Protective Order Is 

Sufficiently Narrowly Tailored 

Submitted contemporaneously with this motion is a proposed protective order. The 

proposed order does not prevent Mr. Riddle or others from engaging in normal conversation 

with any person. Rather, it prohibits any party from making "any extrajudicial statement 

about this case which a reasonable person would believe could be publicly disseminated." 

This proposed order is narrowly tailored. It allows parties to disseminate information 

regarding items that are part ofthe public record, but it limits such dissemination to bare facts 

as opposed to opinions, questions, or commentary. Compare United States v. Fieger, Case 

2008 WL 659767 (E.D. Mich. March 11,2008) (similar protective order by Judge Borman); 

United States v. Calabrese, 2007 WL 2075630 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (similar protective order); see 

also Koubriti, 307 F. Supp.2d at 898 (protective order is narrowly tailored because it does 

not prohibit public disclosure of information, or comment upon, matters which have been 

disclosed in a public filing, hearing or other proceeding). 

A necessary component of any protective order, including the proposed order 

submitted with this motion, is an explanation ofwhy the less burdensome alternatives ofvoir 

dire, jury selection, sequestration, or a change of venue are insufficient. Ford, 830 F.2d at 

603 (Krupansky, J. concurring). As explained by the Supreme Court, "Extensive voir dire 

may not be able to filter out all ofthe effects of pretrial publicity." Gentile, 501 U.S. 1030, 

1075. Moreover, a change ofvenue would be plainly insufficient because Mr. Riddle could 

9
 

Case 2:09-cr-20025-AC-MAR Document 79 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 15 of 17
simply make extrajudicial statements in the new jurisdiction. Compare Gentile, 501 U.S. at 

1075 (noting that even change of venue might be insufficient in today' s era of widespread 

media coverage). Sequestration and other remedies are insufficient both because of the 

considerable costs they impose on the Court and the jury as well as the fact that the prejudice 

will already have attached by the time those measures are employed. In short, only a 

protective order is sufficient to protect the fair trial rights of the parties. 

III. CONCLUSION 

"Few, if any, interests under the Constitution are more fundamental than the right to 

a fair trial by impartial jurors, and an outcome affected by extrajudicial statements would· 

violate that fundamental right." Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1075. For that reason, the government 

respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion for a protective order and preclude Mr. 

Riddle or any other party or attorney to this proceeding from making extrajudicial statements. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DAVID A. GARDEY 

U.S. Department of Justice 

211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001 

Detroit, Michigan 48226-3211 

Telephone: (313) 226-9591 

DATED: December 4, 2009 

10
 

Case 2:09-cr-20025-AC-MAR Document 79 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 16 of 17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on December 4,2009, I provided a copy to the following 

attorneys by way of facsimile: 

John Minnock, Esq.
 

Edward Wishnow, Esq.
 

-r-­

DAVID A. GARDEY 

Assistant United States Attorney 

211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001 

Detroit, MI 48226 

Phone: (313) 226-9591 

E-Mail: David.Gardey@usdoj.gov 

Bar No. P48990 

Case 2:09-cr-20025-AC-MAR Document 79 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 17 of 17