Government’s Response Opposing Defendant’s Letter Motion for Modification of Bail Conditions [Ecf No. 61] — No. 5:25-cr-20543 (Dkt. 69, E.D. Mich.)

Summary

The Government's Response Opposing Defendant's Letter Motion for Modification of Bail Conditions [ECF No. 61], ECF No. 69, filed May 20, 2026 in United States v. Cemhan Biricik, Criminal No. 25-20543 (Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The government opposes the defendant's request to remove his GPS tether, arguing under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2) that he offers no new information with a material bearing on whether conditions will reasonably assure his appearance. It states that the court released him with electronic monitoring as a key condition after briefing and oral argument, and asks the court to leave the tether requirement in place.

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. 69, PageID.598 Filed 05/20/26 Page 1 of 8




                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
                           SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

             Plaintiff,
                                                    Criminal No. 25-20543
v.
                                                    Honorable Judith E. Levy
D-1 CEMHAN BIRICIK,

             Defendant.


     GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE OPPOSING DEFENDANT’S LETTER
     MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF BAIL CONDITIONS [ECF No. 61]


       Defendant Cemhan Biricik, the alleged mastermind of a half-billion-dollar

healthcare billing fraud that caused upwards of $50M in losses, seeks review of his

bond conditions via two-paragraph letter motion, requesting removal of his tether

(ECF No. 61, PageID.532). Biricik was previously detained by an out of district

magistrate judge; the tether itself was imposed by this Court as a condition

necessary to ensure his continued appearance, after extensive briefing and oral

argument. See ECF No. 24, 31.

       Because Biricik offers no new information that has a “material bearing on

the issue,” his request should be denied. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2).


                                         1
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 69, PageID.599 Filed 05/20/26 Page 2 of 8




                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
                           SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

      Plaintiff,
                                                    Criminal No. 25-20543
v.
                                                    Honorable Judith E. Levy
CEMHAN BIRICIK,

     Defendant.
____________________________/

     Government’s Brief in Support of its Response Opposing Defendant’s
       Letter-Motion for Modification of Bail Conditions [ECF No. 61]

      The government respectfully opposes the defendant’s request to remove his

tether. While the Court may amend bond conditions “at any time” “to impose

additional or different conditions of release,” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(3), a defendant

seeking modification must satisfy § 3142(f)(2)’s threshold requirement of

presenting new information that “has a material bearing on the issue whether there

are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person

as required.” United States v. Mays, No. 23-cr-20521, 2024 WL 2863246, at *7

(E.D. Mich. June 6, 2024) (Goldsmith, J.) (quoting United States v. Peguero, 2021

WL 4811315, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 14, 2021) (collecting cases)); see also United

States v. Brannon, No. 25-20560, 2026 WL 661964, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 9,

                                          2
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 69, PageID.600 Filed 05/20/26 Page 3 of 8




2026) (Berg, J.) (citing United States v. Ebonka, 733 F.Supp.3d 967, 969 (D. Nev.

2024) (collecting cases))). Biricik has not come close to meeting that threshold.

His letter-motion identifies nothing new, and certainly nothing material to the

question of whether he poses a risk of non-appearance. He offers only that

(1) he has been “a model of compliance thus far,” and (2) he faces some

unspecified degree of professional inconvenience with respect to both his

photography business and his burgeoning AI company.

      As to the fact of his compliance, that alone is insufficient to relax his

conditions. As Judge Goldsmith noted in Mays, “such an argument would mean

that a defendant could earn a relaxation of bond conditions simply by complying

with existing bond conditions. There is no logic to that proposition, and no

supporting authority.” 2024 WL 2863246, at *7; see also Ebonka, 733 F.Supp.3d

967, 970 (quoting United States v. Kube, No. 19-cr-00257, 2020 WL 1984178, at

*5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2020) (“The fact that Defendant has complied with his

conditions of release is what allows him to remain out of custody and is not new

information that has a material bearing on his conditions to reopen the detention

hearing”)).

      On the question of professional inconvenience, broadly, these are the same

facts and circumstances that existed when this Court imposed the ankle bracelet as

                                          3
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 69, PageID.601 Filed 05/20/26 Page 4 of 8




a condition of his release. The specific challenges Biricik raises (i.e., that the

bracelet makes it harder to attract photography clients, that Florida summers make

concealment uncomfortable, and that it may give investors in his new AI venture

pause) were all entirely foreseeable at the time conditions were set and do not

constitute new information having any bearing on his risk of flight. Because the

defendant cannot satisfy the threshold statutory requirement, the Court need not

proceed further.

      Even if the Court were to look past the threshold issue, the underlying flight

risk analysis is unchanged and, if anything, has grown more acute. The government

previously sought Biricik’s outright detention, and Northern District of Florida

magistrate judge Midori Lowry agreed. Following briefing and oral argument, this

Court released him, with electronic monitoring serving as one of the key conditions

intended to provide assurance of his future appearance. The reasons for that

condition remain fully intact: Biricik faces a guidelines range the government

estimates may exceed 20 years in custody; he has familial ties to Turkey and

documented travel to other foreign countries; and the government’s tracing of

fraud proceeds—including cryptocurrency holdings and investment accounts—

remains ongoing, meaning he potentially retains access to resources sufficient to

finance his flight. Particularly where he claims monthly expenses of $31K (See

                                            4
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 69, PageID.602 Filed 05/20/26 Page 5 of 8




ECF No. 44, PageID.354) and has been less than forthcoming with the details of

his finances (See ECF No. 62, PageID.542).

      His letter-motion, far from allaying the government’s concerns, underscores

them: by the defense’s own account, Biricik seeks to travel regularly between

South Florida (his district of supervision), New York, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas

in connection with his photography business. Similarly, he desires to take meetings

with investors and potential business partners, presumably in-person given his

concerns about the visibility of an ankle bracelet; such meetings would also likely

require travel. The GPS tether is a safeguard against flight by a defendant who

intends to be highly mobile, and who has strong incentives to flee. Allowing

Biricik to frequent international airports, regardless of whether his trips and

itineraries are reported in advance, dramatically increases the risk of his departing

the country on a secondary passport. It would also make it far more difficult for the

government to intervene to prevent such an attempt, as the fact of his travel toward

an international airport would, itself, no longer be anomalous.

      Moreover, the defendant’s stated justifications for removal of his tether do

not withstand scrutiny. The indictment in this case is a matter of significant public

record and the Department of Justice press release announcing the indictment is

readily discoverable by anyone performing even cursory research into his

                                           5
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 69, PageID.603 Filed 05/20/26 Page 6 of 8




background. See https://www.justice.gov/usao-edmi/pr/ceo-and-medical-director-

charged-500m-covid-19-test-billing-fraud (last visited May 18, 2026). Any

prospective photography client or tech investor conducting basic due diligence

would find it immediately—as recently as May 18, 2026, it was the first hit when

searching his full name in Google. To the extent his business prospects are actually

impaired (which is thus far an unsupported assertion), the publicly reported

allegations that he was behind a massive healthcare billing fraud are more likely to

be the source of his woes than his tether.

      It is important to recognize that the goal in setting conditions of release is to

choose the “least restrictive ... combination of conditions[ ] that [will] ...

reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any

other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B). Thus, while

choosing the “least restrictive” combination of condition does require some

analysis of the level of restriction placed on a defendant, the focus here must be on

what combination of conditions will accomplish the goal of ensuring the

defendant’s appearance, and not on the degree to which those conditions may

incidentally burden the defendant. Here, even assuming the information regarding

his employment is new, it is not “material.” A visible ankle bracelet making it,

arguably, more difficult to land clients or investor funding does nothing to change

                                             6
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 69, PageID.604 Filed 05/20/26 Page 7 of 8




the analysis that led to this Court imposing the location monitoring condition in the

first instance.

       The government respectfully requests that the Court leave Biricik’s GPS

tether requirement in place and deny the request to modify his conditions.


                                              Respectfully submitted,

                                              JEROME F. GORGON, JR.
                                              United States Attorney

                                              s/ Ryan A. Particka
                                              Ryan A. Particka
                                              Regina R. McCullough
                                              Assistant United States Attorneys
                                              211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001
                                              Detroit, MI 48226
                                              (313) 226-9635
                                              Ryan.particka@usdoj.gov
Date: May 20, 2026




                                          7
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 69, PageID.605 Filed 05/20/26 Page 8 of 8




                         CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

      I hereby certify that on May 20, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will provide

electronic notice to counsel of record.




                                              s/ Ryan A. Particka
                                              Ryan A. Particka
                                              Assistant United States Attorney
                                              211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001
                                              Detroit, MI 48226
                                              (313) 226-9635
                                              Ryan.particka@usdoj.gov




                                          8


File and source

File

69.pdf

Size

167,878 bytes

SHA-256

075f686af88397809e8ab63fd6a217c2780782a69586a12f69a811949522dd8a

Our copy

69.pdf

Original

No public link identified.