Cemhan “Jimmy” Biricik’s Application for Revocation or Amendment to Order Granting Government’s Motion for Pretrial Detention, and to Reopen Detention Hearing — No. 5:25-cr-20543 (Dkt. 24, E.D. Mich.)

Summary

Cemhan "Jimmy" Biricik asks the federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan (Case 5:25-cr-20543) to revoke or amend the Magistrate's order granting the government's motion for pretrial detention, or to reopen the detention hearing. Biricik is charged with one count each of conspiracy to commit health care (Medicare) fraud and committing or attempting to commit health care fraud. The application recounts the order's reasons for finding a serious risk of flight: $40 million in funds attributed to Biricik is unaccounted for, a father and an aunt live in Turkey, and Biricik has traveled internationally, is a student pilot and has a private jet. The defense answers that Biricik is 46 years old, has lived in the United States since age 4 and has no criminal record, and asks for release on conditions such as bond, electronic monitoring and home confinement.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 24, PageID.235 Filed 10/01/25 Page 1 of 14

TODD ANDREW SPODEK, ESQ.
NY Reg. #4489399
Spodek Law Group P.C.
The Woolworth Building
233 Broadway, Suite 710
New York, NY 10279
Telephone: (212) 300-5196
Email: ts@spodeklawgroup.com

Attorney for Defendant
CEMHAN “JIMMY” BIRICIK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff
Case Number: 5:25-cr-20543
CEMHAN “JIMMY” BIRICIK,
DR MARTIN PERLIN

Defendant.
_______________________________/

CEMHAN “JIMMY” BIRICIK’S APPLICATION FOR REVOCATION OR AMENDMENT
TO ORDER GRANTING GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR PRETRIAL DETENTION, AND
TO REOPEN DETENTION HEARING AFTER DETERMINATION BY JUDICIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(b) AND (f)(2), AND REQUEST FOR HEARING

COMES NOW, the Defendant, CEMHAN BIRICIK, by and through his undersigned

attorney, and, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(b) and (f)(2), respectfully requests that this

Honorable Court revoke or amend the Magistrate’s August 1, 2025 Order granting the

Government’sMotionforPretrialDetention,orreopenthedetentionhearingafterdetermination

by judicial officer, and as grounds in support of this request,MR. BIRICIKstates that:

ARGUMENT

Mr.Biricikiscurrentlychargedwithonecounteachofconspiracytocommithealthcare

(Medicare) fraud, and committing or attempting to commit health care (Medicare) fraud. See

1
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 24, PageID.236 Filed 10/01/25 Page 2 of 14

Doc. 1, United States v. Biricik, Case No. 1:25-mj-28, N.D. Fla.1 On August 1, 2025, the

MagistrateenteredherOrdergrantingtheGovernment’smotionforpretrialdetentiononAugust

1, 2025 (SeeDoc. 9).

Ifapersonisordereddetainedbyamagistratejudge,orbyapersonotherthana
judge of a court having original jurisdiction over the offense and other than a
Federal appellate court, the person may file, with the court having original
jurisdiction overthe offense,amotionforrevocationoramendmentoftheorder.
The motion shall be determined promptly.

18 USC § 3145(b).

ADistrictCourt’sreviewofaMagistrate’sOrderregardingpretrialdetentionisdenovo.

See United States v. Delker, 757 F.2d 1390, 1395(3dCir.1985);UnitedStatesv.Rueben,974

F.2d580,585-86(5thCir.1992)(“Whenthedistrictcourtactsonamotiontorevokeoramenda

magistrate's pretrial detention order, the district court acts de novo and must make an

independent determination of the proper pretrial detention or conditions for release.”); United

Statesv.Maull,773F.2d1479,1481(8thCir.1985)(enbanc)(statingthatdistrictcourt'sreview

of magistrate judge's order setting bond was de novo).

Adefendantcannotbedetainedpendingtrialunlessthecourtfindsthatnoconditions,or

combinationofconditions,willreasonablyassuretheappearanceofthepersonandthesafetyof

the community. United States v. Bustamante-Conchas, 557 F. App'x 803 at 5 (10th Cir.2014)

(citing18U.S.C.§3142).Generally,courtsapplyapresumptioninfavorofpretrialrelease.Id.

(citing 18 USC § 3142(b)).

Under18USC§3145(a),apersonaccusedofacrimeshalleitherbereleasedonpersonal

recognizanceoruponexecutionofanunsecuredappearancebond,under18USC§3145(b)(see

18USC§3145(a)(1));releasedonaconditionorcombinationofconditionsundersubsection18

1
References to ‘Doc. __’ are to filings in the earlier proceedings before the Hon. Midori Lowry in the Northern
District of Florida, Case No. 1:25-mj-28.

2
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 24, PageID.237 Filed 10/01/25 Page 3 of 14

USC § 3145(c) (see 18 USC § 3145(a)(2)); be temporarily detained to permit revocation of

conditional release, deportation, or exclusion under 18 USC § 3145(d) (see 18 USC §

3145(a)(3)); or detained under 18 USC § 3145(e) (see18 USC § 3145(a)(4)).

Pursuantto18USC§3142(f)(2),adetentionhearing“maybereopened,beforeoraftera

determination by the judicial officer, at any time before trial if the judicial officer finds that

information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of thehearingandthathasa

materialbearingontheissuewhetherthereareconditionsofreleasethatwillreasonablyassure

the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the

community.” 18 USC § 3142(f)(2).

Parenthetically, since entry of the Magistrate’sOrder,Mr.Biricikhiredtheundersigned

counsel who has learned of facts and received information that materially bear on the issue,

whetherthereareconditionsofreleasethatwillreasonablyassuretheappearanceofsuchperson

as required and the safety of any other person and the community, but which was difficult to

relay to the Magistrate due to Mr. Biricik’s incarceration and the limited time his previous

counsel had toprepareforandpresentevidenceatthehearingontheGovernment’smotionfor

pretrial detention. With this additional information, Mr. Biricik can now better answer the

Court’s concerns regarding detention.

In the instant case, the Magistrate concluded that Mr. Biricik should be detained

“becausetheGovernmentshowedbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatthereisaserious

risk that Defendant will flee (18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(A)) and that no conditions or

combinations of conditions will reasonably assure his presence as required (18 U.S.C. §

3142(e)(1))” (Doc. 9, p. 1).

None of the presumptions enumerated in 18 USC §§ 3142(e)(2) or (3) applied,the

3
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 24, PageID.238 Filed 10/01/25 Page 4 of 14

Magistrate found that Mr. Biricik did not pose “a clear and convincing danger to the

community that cannot be attenuated byconditions;”Mr.Biricik“doesnothaveacriminal

history;” “there is no indication of substance abuse;” and he has “strong ties to Florida,”

having lived here “sinceage4,”andcurrentlylivingherewithhiswife,threechildren,and

his mother. See Doc. 9, pgs. 3-4. Mr. Biricik resides in New Jersey until he was

approximately 14 years old, and moved to Florida with his family in 2011.

Instead,theMagistrateconcludedthatnothingshortofincarcerationcanassurethat

Mr. Biricik won’t flee the country because, given the seriousness and strengthofthecase,

Mr.Biricikismotivatedtoflee(SeeDoc.9,pgs.1-3);since$40millioninfundsattributedto

Mr.Biricikiscurrentlyunaccountedfor,hehasthefinancialmeanstoflee(SeeDoc.9,p.2);

sincehisfatherandanauntliveinTurkey,hehassignificanttiestothatcountry(Id.);hehad

plans to visit the aunt who, the Government alleged is ill (Id.); Mr. Biricik has traveled

internationally, is a student pilot, is familiar with private jet travel, and has a private jet.Id.

According to the Magistrate’s Order, putting an electronic monitor on Mr. Biricik

wouldn’tworkbecausehecouldsimplycutitoff(Id.at4)(thoughneithertheMagistratenor

thegovernmentaddressedthefactthatifMr.BiricikweretosucceedincuttingoffhisGPS

monitor,authoritieswouldbenotifiedimmediately)(seeBustamante-Conchas,557F.App'x

803 at 8); surrendering his passport wouldn’t be effective since he could get a fraudulent

passport; (Id.) (neither the Government nor the Magistrate explained how, logistically, Mr.

Biricik would do that, nor were the practical difficulties in securing a fraudulent passport,

andthesophisticatedabilitiesofborderagentsandtheTSAindetectingfraudulentpassports

addressed); Mr. Biricik’s familiaritywithinternationaltravelwouldmakeiteasyforhimto

travel outside the U.S. (Id. at 4-5) (though Mr. Biricik may have some familiarity with

4
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 24, PageID.239 Filed 10/01/25 Page 5 of 14

traveling outside the U.S., neither the Magistrate nor the Government addressed the

impossibility of doing that without a passport while on electronic monitoring); and

extradition from many places, including Turkey, “can be difficult or impossible.” Id. at 5.

This conclusion will be addressed in depth later in this Motion.

TheSupremeCourthasheldthatpretrialdetentionisdisfavored.SeeUnitedStatesv.

Salerno,481U.S.739,755(1987)(“Inoursocietylibertyisthenorm,anddetentionpriorto

trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.”). In Salerno, the Supreme Court

ultimately approved pretrialdetentionbasedondangerousness(Salernowasa“boss”ofthe

Genovese crime family which was notorious for, among other things, using violence,

including murder, against witnesses), but the Court was clear that the Bail Reform Act is

preventative, rather than punitive, in nature.Id.at747–48,107S.Ct.2095.Consistentwith

theSupremeCourt'sholding,theBailReformActstatesthatnothinginit“shallbeconstrued

as modifying or limiting the presumption of innocence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(j).

Under the Bail Reform Act, a defendant may be detained pending trial only if a

judicial officer finds that no condition or combination of conditionswillreasonablyassure

the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the

community. 18U.S.C.§3142(b),(c).Ajudicialofficermaymakesuchafindingonlyafter

holding a hearing according to the procedures specified in § 3142(f), and the government

bears the burden of proof at that hearing. The government must prove risk of flight by a

preponderance of the evidence, seeU.S.v.Motamedi,767F.2d1403,1407(9thCir.1985);

United States v. Xulam, 84 F.3d 441, 442 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam); United States v.

Quartermaine, 913 F.2d 910, 917 (11thCir.1990),anditmustprovedangerousnesstoany

other person or to the community by clear and convincing evidence, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f).

5
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 24, PageID.240 Filed 10/01/25 Page 6 of 14

Courts must be mindful of the presumption of innocence and its corollary that the

righttobailshouldbedeniedonlyforthestrongestofreasons.Motamedi,767F.2dat1407

(citing Truong Dinh Hung v. United States, 439 U.S. 1326, 1329 (1978); Harris v. United

States, 404 U.S. 1232, 1232 (1971);Sellers v. UnitedStates, 89 S.Ct. 36, 38 (1968)).

Even if a presumption under 18 USC § 3142(e) that no conditions can assure his

appearance in court andthesafetyofthecommunitywereapplicablehere(whichitisnot),

the presumption could, andwould,beovercomebyMr.Biricik’sproducingevidenceofhis

lackofcriminalhistory,hisstatusasacitizenoftheU.S.,andhisfamilytiestotheU.S.See

Bustamante-Conchas,557F.App'x803at6(citingUnitedStatesv.Stricklin,932F.2d1353,

1355 (10th Cir. 1991) (“The defendant's burden of production is not heavy, but some

evidence must be produced.”).

Section 3142(g) specifies the various factors to be considered by the court in

determining whether conditions of release may be imposed that will reasonably assure the

appearanceoftheperson.Thecourtmusttakeintoaccountavailableinformationconcerning

the nature and circumstances of theoffensecharged,theweightoftheevidenceagainstthe

person, the history and characteristics of the person, including his character, physical and

mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the

community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug and alcohol abuse,

criminal history, record concerning appearance at court proceedings, and the nature and

seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the

person's release.Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3142(g)).

As reflected in the Pretrial Services Report prepared in the Northern District of

Florida(UnitedStatesv.Biricik,CaseNo.1:25-mj-28,N.D.Fla.),thedefendantdeclinedto

6
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 24, PageID.241 Filed 10/01/25 Page 7 of 14

be interviewed without counsel present. As a result, the report lacks critical information

about his background, community ties, family support, employment history, and health.

Defendant respectfully requeststhatPretrialServicesbedirectedtopromptlyconductafull

interview with counsel present so the Court has a complete and accurate record under 18

U.S.C. § 3142(g).

I. Mr. Biricik Does Not Pose a Risk of Flight

Like the defendant in Motamedi, there are many factors listed in section 3142(g)

which point toward the conclusion that Biricik should be released. As for flight, concerns

with respect to flight are ameliorated by a defendant who has strong ties to the local

community.SeeUnitedStatesv.Davis,449F.Supp.3d532,540(D.Md.2020).Mr.Biricik

is a United States citizen; with the exception ofhisfather,wholivesasashut-inhermitin

Turkey, his entire family – his wife, his three children, his mother, and his aunt and her

familyallresideintheUnitedStates.TheMagistratewasconcernedthatMr.Biricikwasto

“flytoTurkeynextweektovisitwithhisaunt,whoisgravelyill,”(SeeDoc.9,p.2)which

raised, perhaps, the inference that his aunt resided in Turkey when, in fact, she does not.

Rather, she was in Turkeytoreceivecancertreatmentandtobeburiednexttoherfatherif

she passed away, in whichcase,shecertainlywouldnotbeafamilymemberonwhichMr.

Biricik could depend, to any extent, to stay in Turkey. Moreover, as noted earlier in this

Motion,Mr.Biricik’sfatherisahermit–hardlythetypeofpersonwhowouldbeproviding

succor to Mr. Biricik, or a reason for him to stay in Turkey.

Regarding his experience traveling internationally, contrary to the Magistrate’s

finding(SeeDoc.9,p.2),Mr.BiricikhasnevertraveledtoSingapore;moreover,allofMr.

Biricik’s trips outside the United States have been on family vacations when the children

7
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 24, PageID.242 Filed 10/01/25 Page 8 of 14

were off from school, and the family returned from all of those vacations.

ThoughtheOrderalsoadvertstoMr.Biricikandhiswifebeingstudentpilots(SeeDoc.

9, p. 2), there is no evidence that either of them has the type of license, flyingexperience,or

access to aircraft which would allow them to fly from the United States to Turkey – the

destination which the Order asserts Mr. Biricik would flee to. Beyond the reference that Mr.

Biricik is a student pilot, there is no evidence that he has soloed, has the flight hours, the

experiencetheproficiencyinInstrumentFlightRules,ortheairmanshipwhichwouldenablehim

to undertake, or survive, the almost 6,000-mile flight across vast stretches of water and land,

over numerous countries’ airspace, and through all kinds of weather from Florida to Turkey.

Even assuming the impossible - Mr. Biricik’s technicalabilitytomakethatflight–thereisno

evidencethathehasaccessto,ortheabilitytoaffordtoflythetypeofaircraftcapableofmaking

suchaflight.ThoughtheMagistrate’sOrdersaysthatMr.Biricikhasa“privatejet,”(SeeDoc.

9, p. 2), that is inaccurate;rather,Mr.Biricikownedasmallsinglepropellerairplane(aCirrus

SR22T) which has been seized by the Government, and is utterly incapable of flying to Turkey.

In summary, the Magistrate’s conclusion that Mr. Biricik’s being a student pilot who

ownedaprivatejet,hastravelledinternationally,andwhosefatherandauntliveinTurkey,make

him a substantial flight risk, is highly speculative,partlyinaccurate,andisunsupportedbythe

practical facts.

The Magistrate’s conclusion that if Mr. Biricik somehow made his way to Turkey,

extraditionwouldbeverydifficultorimpossible(SeeDoc.9,p.5)is,likewise,speculativeand

unsupportedbythefacts.TurkeyandtheUnitedStateshavealong-standingbilateralextradition

treatywhichwassignedin1979andratifiedin1980.SeeTheTreatyonExtraditionandMutual

AssistanceinCriminalMattersbetweentheUnitedStatesandTurkey,U.S.-Turk,June07,1978,

8
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 24, PageID.243 Filed 10/01/25 Page 9 of 14

32 U.S.T. 3111; see also “The Process Behind Turkey’s Proposed Extradition of Fethullah

Gulen.”2 The Treaty, approved bytheUnitedStatesSenate,isaformaltreaty,notanexecutive

agreementandisararecompositeagreementthatcoversnotonlyextraditionbutalsoestablishes

rules on mutual criminal assistance. See Id. The criminal conduct that the United States is

accusing Mr. Biricikofmustalsoqualifyforcriminalprosecutionandimprisonmentofatleast

oneyearunderTurkishlawinordertomeettherequirementsofthetreaty.SeeId.atArt.2(1)(a).

The treaty includes “attempted” crimes and “conspiracy” to commit certain crimes. Id at Art.

2(3)(a); Art. 2(3)(b). Also, “Whenarequestforextraditioncomprisesseveralseparateoffenses

andextraditionhasbeengrantedforoneoftheextraditableoffenses,itshallalsobegrantedfor

other extraditable offenses whichcouldnototherwisefulfilltherequirementsofparagraphs(1)

and(2)aboveasrelatedtothedeprivationoflibertytobeservedordurationofthepenaltytobe

enforced in the Requesting Party.”See Id. at Art.2(4).

Mr. Biricik is charged with one count each of conspiracy to commit health care

(Medicare)fraud,andcommittingorattemptingtocommithealthcare(Medicare)fraud.Health

carefraudisacriminaloffenseinTurkey.Specifically,white-collarcrimeinTurkeyisregulated

under various legal frameworks,primarilythroughtheTurkishPenalCode(TPC)No.5237,as

well as other legislative instruments such as the Turkish Commercial Code, Capital Markets

Law,BankingLaw,andAnti-MoneyLaundering(AML)Law.See“GuidetoWhiteCollar-Crime

Law in Turkey.”3 These laws define, categorize, and prescribe penalties for financial crimes,

corruption, and regulatory violations. White-collar crime in Turkey encompasses offenses

2
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-process-behind-turkeys-proposed-extradition-of-fethullah-gulen/#:~:t
ext=The%20United%20States%20and%20Turkey,a%20military%20coup%20in%20Turkey;Treaty on Extradition
and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Between the United States of America and the Republic of Turkey,
https://internationalextraditionblog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/turkey.pdf.
3
https://www.bicakhukuk.com/en/guide-to-white-collar-crime-law-in-turkey/#:~:text=White%2Dcollar%20crime%2
0in%20Turkey,face%20imprisonment%20and%20restitution%20obligations.

9
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 24, PageID.244 Filed 10/01/25 Page 10 of 14

committed in both public and private sectors, affecting financial stability, public trust, and

economic development. Id. More specifically, several offenses falling under the umbrella of

white-collarcrimeareexplicitlydefinedandpenalizedwithintheTurkishPenalCode(TPC)No.

5237.Id. These include:

Fraud (Dolandırıcılık) is regulated under Article 157, which criminalizes obtaining

unlawful benefits through deception. Aggravated fraud under Article 158 applies to cases

involving public institutions, banks, insurance companies, and vulnerable individuals, with

stricter penalties.Id.

Embezzlement (Zimmet Suçu), under Article 247, criminalizes public officials who

misappropriate funds or assets entrusted to them. Those found guilty face imprisonment and

restitution obligations.Id.

The penalty for fraud in Turkey is imprisonment from one to fiveyears,andajudicial

fine.See“FraudulentActivitiesandTurkishCriminalCode:AnOverview.”4 Thepenaltycanbe

increasedifthefraudiscommittedbyusingapublicduty,afalsedocument,orafalseidentity,or

if the fraud causes serious damage or affects many people.Id.

Basedontheforegoing,ifMr.BiricikfledtoTurkey,hewouldbesubjecttoextradition

under the bi-lateral extradition treaty between the UnitedStatesandTurkey.Mostimportantly,

thereisnoevidencethat,giventhefactthatthecrimesMr.Biricikischargedwithherearealso

crimes in Turkey, there is no basis to conclude that extradition would be very difficult or

impossible.

There is also the matter of Mr. Biricik’s being unable to support himselfshouldhe

fleetoTurkey,oranothercountry.HehasnobankaccountsoutsidetheU.S.toaccessfunds

4
https://alfalawfirm.com/fraudulent-activities-turkish-criminal-code-an-overview/#:~:text=The%20penalty%20for%
20fraud%20is,damage%20or%20affects%20many%20people.

10
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 24, PageID.245 Filed 10/01/25 Page 11 of 14

from,and,sincehedoesnotownanyrealorpersonalpropertyoutofthecountry,hewould

not be able to liquidate any assets and so support himself in another country. Even if he

wanted to liquidate his realandpersonalassetsheldintheUnitedStates,hecouldn’tdoso

becausetheGovernmentisseekingforfeitureofallofMr.Biricik’sassets.(SeeDoc.1,pgs.

24-25).

FurtherundermininganyconcernthatMr.Biricikwillflee,isthefactthathehasnot

attempted to flee, made planstoflee,orfledeventhoughhehasknownforawhilethathe

has been the target of a federal investigation.Indeed,priortoissuanceoftheindictmentin

this case, Mr. Biricik was stopped at the airport by Customs and Border Patrol and they

interviewedhimandwentthroughhisphoneaskingvariousquestionsabouthistiesoutside

of the United States, and was aware that P Verify and Pandemic Response Lab had been

contacted by the DOJ regarding conduct which has led to the instant charges.

Based on the foregoing, there is not a preponderance of evidence that Mr. Biricik

poses a risk of flight.

II. Mr. Biricik Does Not Pose a Danger to the Community

Mr. Biricik is 46 years old and, as noted by the Magistrate,haslivedintheUnited

Statessincehewas4.(Doc.9,p.4).Thegovernmentconcedeshehasnocriminalrecord;in

fact, he has never even been accused of a single criminal act.

TheCourtmusttakeintoconsiderationwhetherMr.Biricikhimselfposesadangerto

thecommunitysuchthatreleasinghimwouldbemoredangerousthankeepinghimdetained.

See Davis, 449 F. Supp.3d at 539. Rare is the case in which there will be no evidence of

danger to the community based on alleged criminal conduct. Id. Theplainlanguageofthe

statuterequirestheCourttoevaluatethe“natureandseriousnessofthedanger.”Id.(quoting

11
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 24, PageID.246 Filed 10/01/25 Page 12 of 14

18 USC § 3142(g)(4)). This language makes clear that there aredifferenttypesofdangers

andvaryinglevelsofseriousness.Id.Sellingnarcotics,forexample,isdifferentfromidentity

theft, which is different from carjacking. Id. Having identified the specific nature of the

danger and how serious it is,theCourtthenmustconsideravailablereleaseconditionsthat

willaddressthoseconcernsand"reasonablyassure"thesafetyofthecommunity.Thestatute

requires "reasonable assurance," not a "guarantee." Id. (quoting United States v. Orta, 760

F.2d 887, 891-92 (8th Cir. 1985)).

Given the speculative nature of the Magistrate’sconclusionsasdescribedearlierinthis

Motion,itmaybereasonablyinferredthattheprimaryreasonwhytheGovernment’smotionfor

pretrialdetentionwasgrantedwasbecauseoftheseverityoftheallegationsagainstMr.Biricik,

the dollar amount of the alleged crime(s), in particular. Regardingthatmatter,aDistrictCourt

must reject theGovernment’sargumentthatimpliesguilt,asitisstrictlyprohibitedbytheBail

ReformAct.See18U.S.C.§3142(j)(“Nothinginthissectionshallbeconstruedasmodifyingor

limiting the presumption of innocence”). Furthermore, the “weight of the evidence istheleast

important of the various factors.” United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1408 (9th Cir.

1985); even in a presumption case,theBailReformActcontainsa“leastrestrictiveconditions

requirement.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)).

GiventhefinancialnatureoftheallegationsagainstMr.Biricik,thedangerwhichhe

posed was financial. That danger has been eliminated. Mr. Biricik’s businesses have been

shut down, his bank accounts frozen, and all of his assets are subject to forfeiture. The

Government referenced foreign transactions; however, all of those were purely minor

business transactions. Furthermore, his businesses have been effectively shut down by the

Government, so there is no ongoing danger to the public or the Government.

12
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 24, PageID.247 Filed 10/01/25 Page 13 of 14

Legally and practically, he cannotengageinthetypeofbusinesswhichgaveriseto

thecurrentchargesagainsthim.Consequently,theevidenceofdangerousnessisnotclearand

convincing.

There is also the fact that the dangerofpretrialdetentionisgreaterthanthedanger

posedbyMr.Biricik’srelease.Mr.Biriciksuffersfromasthma.Asthma,inparticular,posesa

dangerofdeathshouldMr.Biriciksufferanasthmaattackthatisnotimmediatelyaddressed

– a legitimate concern when someone is incarcerated, particularlyattheCountylevel.Itis

alsoimportanttonotetheriskofspoliationofevidenceassociatedwithpretrialdetention:the

risk is accentuated because witnesses and vendors who are in possession of evidence

germanetothiscase,includingevidencethatmaybebeneficialtothedefense,arenotbeing

paid; consequently, they lack any motive or incentive to preserve such evidence.

III. Statement Regarding Attorney Conference

Therewasaconferencebetweenattorneysinwhichthemovantexplainedthenature

of the motion or requestanditslegalbasisandrequestedbutdidnotobtainconcurrencein

the relief sought;

Mr. Biricik does not need the services of an interpreter for the hearing on this motion.

WHEREFORE,theDefendant,CEMHANBIRICIK,respectfullyrequeststhisHonorable

Court revoke or amend the Magistrate’s Order granting the Government’s Motion for Pretrial

Detention, or reopen the detention hearing and enter its Order granting pretrial release upon

reasonable conditions, including bond, electronic monitoring, personal supervision, home

confinement, and any other conditions the District Judge finds is appropriate to assure Mr.

Biricik’s appearance at future proceedings and to protect individuals and the community.

13
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 24, PageID.248 Filed 10/01/25 Page 14 of 14

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 1st day of October 2025, I electronically filed the

foregoingwiththeClerkoftheCourtbyusingtheCM/ECFsystemwhichwillsendanoticeof

electronic filing to the all counsel of record.

s/ Todd Andrew Spodek

______________________________
TODD ANDREW SPODEK, ESQ.
NY Reg. #4489399
Spodek Law Group P.C.
The Woolworth Building
233 Broadway, Suite 710
New York, NY 10279
Telephone: (212) 300-5196
Email: ts@spodeklawgroup.com

Attorney for Defendant
CEMHAN BIRICIK

cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF).

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.mied.387124.24.0.pdf
Size: 264,056 bytes
SHA-256: f5872695fe8234b92af18b298d219edfaf24861bab8d96d43973b85ab9dd89d2
Our copy: gov.uscourts.mied.387124.24.0.pdf
Original: archive.org