between Robinson and the United States regarding whether the subjects of challenged intercepts were, or appeared reasonably to be, criminal in nature, the Court finds that the United States has adequately provided an explanation as to why such calls were intercepted and not minimized. Moreover, even if certain calls were arguably not obviously criminal for their entirety, in many instances the parties to such conversations were known by investigating officers to be involved in the very criminal activity under investigation, and thus the Court does not find it unreasonable in such cases for the agents to have remained on the line due to the real possibility that the conversation could have moved to criminal matters. See United States v. Wilson, 835 F.2d 1440, 1445-46 (D.C.Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Although Robinson dismisses the fact that the
holding that in bankruptcyrelated matters any one party may remove the state court action without the consent of the other parties holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims because the court may review neither criminal matters nor the decisions of district courts holding that parties may consent to jurisdiction on noncore matters holding minimization efforts were reasonable where investigators continued to monitor or intercept conversations that began with discussions of noncriminal matters because the parties could have turned their discussion to criminal matters given the nature of the participants who were party to the call holding parties are to confine their arguments and factual recitations to matters contained in the record