include a detailed description of the evidence that had already been obtained as well as a separate section detailing the aims of and need for continued electronic surveillance. The justifications listed by the government included the facts that the organization under investigation was believed to be an organized crime family that was substantially insulated against infiltration, that additional victims/witnesses would be unlikely to speak to the government out of fear of reprisal, and that attempts to interview these witnesses might compromise the government’s investigation. On these facts, we do not believe that the issuing magistrate judges abused their discretion in granting the government’s extension applications. See United States v. Giacalone, 853 F.2d 470, 480 (6th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). F. Sentencing issues The defendants raise
holding that the objection had been sufficiently timely when the defense waited until the governments rebuttal to object to a statement made during the governments closing statement holding that a title iii warrant was justified where the governments evidence indicated that the defendants belonged to an organized crime family that attempts to infiltrate the organization had failed in the past and were unlikely to succeed in the future and that all of the governments informants had refused to testify because of fear of reprisal holding that the protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest in front of his house on suspicion of murder was not justified because the evidence that an accomplice was involved in the murder did not equate to evidence that someone would be hiding out in the defendants house a month after the crime occurred and at the time of the arrest the officers were not chasing the defendant from a crime scene holding that district court had ample authority to strike claimants affidavit offered in opposition to governments motion for summary judgment in forfeiture action after claimant invoked fifth amendment and refused to answer governments deposition questions holding that an informant was a government agent when he was placed in the defendants jail cell after he indicated his willingness to testify against the defendant be cause it is not the governments intent or overt acts that are important rather it is the likely result of the governments acts that matters