not yet entered an appearance in this case. At the detention hearing, Mr. Hassanshahi was also arraigned on the charges in the Indictment. III. ANALYSIS The Government seeks review of Judge Woehrle’s release order pursuant to the Bail Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1837 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141-50, 3062 (2012)). Under that Act, the Government may seek review of a magistrate judge’s release order by filing, “with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation of the order....” 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a)(1) (2012). Authority to review the release order lies with the district judge. See, e.g., United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610, 615-16 (10th Cir.2003) (citing United States v. Johnson, 858 F.Supp. 119, 122 (N.D.Ind.1994)) (<HOLDING>). This District Court reviews a magistrate
holding that only a district judge in the charging district and not a magistrate judge in that district may review the release order of a magistrate judge in the arresting district holding that the record must reflect both that the district judge considered the defendants argument and that the judge explained the basis for rejecting it holding that the district courts referral of a motion to suppress to a magistrate did not violate article iii so long as the ultimate decision is made by the district court and explaining that congress was alert to art ill values concerning the vesting of decisionmaking power in magistrates accordingly congress made clear that the district court has plenary discretion whether to authorize a magistrate to hold an evidentiary hearing and that the magistrate acts subsidiary to and only in aid of the district court thereafter the entire process takes place under the district courts total control and jurisdiction holding that a postconsent reference order signed by the district judge was required to vest authority in a magistrate judge for disposition of a summary judgment motion holding that without designation by the district court and consent of the parties under section 636c the magistrate judge was not authorized to enter a final appealable postjudgment order