Second EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Trial Date from 05/04/2021 to 08/24/2021.… — USA v. Ayvazyan et al (Dkt. 264)

Summary

The government's Ex Parte Application for (1) Continuance of Trial Date and (2) Findings of Excludable Time Pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, Document 264, filed 04/07/21 in United States v. Richard Ayvazyan et al., No. CR 20-579(A)-SVW (C.D. Cal.), with a declaration of Scott Paetty. It asks to move the trial from 5/4/2021 for all defendants except Hayrapetyan, whose date is 5/18/2021, to 8/24/2021. The government says jury summons have yet to be issued in the Western Division because of the COVID-19 pandemic, so no jury will be available on May 4, 2021. It recounts the March 9, 2021 First Superseding Indictment, which it says adds four defendants and expands the alleged scheme from at least 35 to over 150 fraudulent loan applications. Defense counsel object and ask for a trial date no later than June 15, 2021.

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

Record facts

Full text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TRACY L. WILKISON 
Acting United States Attorney 
BRANDON D. FOX 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
SCOTT PAETTY (Cal. Bar No. 274719) 
BRIAN FAERSTEIN (Cal. Bar No. 274850) 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
Major Frauds/Environmental and Community Safety Crimes Sections 
1100/1300 United States Courthouse 
312 North Spring Street 
Los Angeles, California 90012 
Telephone: (213) 894-6527/3819 
Facsimile: (213) 894-6269/0141 
E-mail: 
Scott.Paetty@usdoj.gov/Brian.Faerstein@usdoj.gov 
 
DANIEL S. KAHN 
Acting Chief, Fraud Section 
Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 
CHRISTOPHER FENTON 
Trial Attorney, Fraud Section 
Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 
1400 New York Avenue NW, 3rd Floor 
Washington, DC 20530 
Telephone: (202) 320-0539 
Facsimile: (202) 514-0152 
E-mail: 
Christopher.Fenton@usdoj.gov 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
RICHARD AYVAZYAN, 
aka “Richard Avazian” and 
    “Iuliia Zhadko,” 
MARIETTA TERABELIAN, 
  aka “Marietta Abelian” and     
      “Viktoria Kauichko,” 
ARTUR AYVAZYAN, 
aka “Arthur Ayvazyan,” and 
TAMARA DADYAN, 
MANUK GRIGORYAN, 
  aka “Mike Grigoryan,” and 
      “Anton Kudiumov,” 
ARMAN HAYRAPETYAN, 
EDVARD PARONYAN, 
No. CR 20-579(A)-SVW 
GOVERNMENT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION 
FOR (1) CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE 
AND (2) FINDINGS OF EXCLUDABLE 
TIME PURSUANT TO THE SPEEDY TRIAL 
ACT; DECLARATION OF SCOTT PAETTY  
CURRENT TRIAL DATE:  5/4/2021 (all 
defendants, except Hayrapetyan) 
 
CURRENT TRIAL DATE:  5/18/2021 
(defendant Hayrapetyan only)      
PROPOSED TRIAL DATE (all 
defendants):  8/24/2021 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264     Filed 04/07/21     Page 1 of 20   Page ID
#:2230

 
2 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
aka “Edvard Paronian” and 
    “Edward Paronyan,” and 
VAHE DADYAN, 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
The United States of America, by and through its counsel of 
record, the United States Attorney for the Central District of 
California, Assistant United States Attorneys Scott Paetty and Brian 
Faerstein, and Department of Justice Trial Attorney Christopher 
Fenton, hereby applies ex parte to request that the Court:  
(1) continue the trial date in this matter; and (2) exclude time from 
the Speedy Trial Act calculation for excludable delay.   
This application is based upon the attached memorandum of points 
and authorities, the declaration of Scott Paetty, the files and 
records in this case, and such further evidence and argument as the 
Court may permit.  
The government contacted counsel for all defendants via email to 
meet and confer on a mutually-agreeable proposed continued date for  
// 
// 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264     Filed 04/07/21     Page 2 of 20   Page ID
#:2231

 
3 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
trial, but counsel for the defense informed the government they 
oppose the government’s request for a continuance of trial. 
Dated: April 7, 2021 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
TRACY L. WILKISON 
Acting United States Attorney 
 
BRANDON D. FOX 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
 
 
      /s/ 
 
SCOTT PAETTY 
BRIAN FAERSTEIN 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
CHRISTOPHER FENTON 
Department of Justice Trial Attorney 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264     Filed 04/07/21     Page 3 of 20   Page ID
#:2232

 
i 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
DESCRIPTION 
PAGE 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...............................................ii 
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES................................1 
I. 
INTRODUCTION...................................................1 
II. 
PROCEDURAL HISTORY.............................................1 
A. 
The Indictment and First Superseding Indictment...........1 
B. 
Pretrial Motions..........................................5 
III. THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC..........................................5 
IV. 
DISCUSSION....................................................10 
V. 
CONCLUSION....................................................15 
 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264     Filed 04/07/21     Page 4 of 20   Page ID
#:2233

 
ii 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
DESCRIPTION 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PAGE 
Federal Cases 
Furlow v. United States, 
644 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1981)  ..................................  12 
In re Approval of Judicial Emergency in the Central Dist. of Cal., 
955 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2020)  .......................  3, 8, 10, 11 
United States v. Correa, 
182 F. Supp. 2d 326 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)  ...........................  12 
United States v. Hale, 
685 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2012)  ..................................  12 
United States v. Lewis, 
611 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2010)  .................................  11 
United States v. Richman, 
600 F.2d 286 (1st Cir. 1979)  ..................................  12 
United States v. Scott, 
245 Fed. Appx. 391 (5th Cir. 2007)  ............................  12 
United States v. Stallings, 
701 F. App’x 164 (3d Cir. 2017)  ...............................  12 
Zedner v. United States, 
547 U.S. 489 (2006)  ...........................................  11 
Federal Statutes 
18 U.S.C. § 3161 .............................................  passim 
18 U.S.C. § 3174 .............................................  passim 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264     Filed 04/07/21     Page 5 of 20   Page ID
#:2234

 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 
I. 
INTRODUCTION 
On March 9, 2021, a grand jury returned a First Superseding 
Indictment, adding four new defendants and significantly expanding 
the charges in this case, which alleges an expansive scheme to steal 
and launder COVID-19 disaster relief loan proceeds.  The case is 
currently scheduled for trial on May 4, 2021, at 8:30 a.m.  The 
government understands that, due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, 
jury summons have yet to be issued for the Western Division of the 
District Court for the Central District of California, and, 
consequently, a jury will not be available for trial on May 4, 2021.  
For this reason and the other reasons set forth below, the government 
respectfully requests that the Court continue the trial date to 
August 24, 2021, and make certain findings as to excludable time.   
On April 5, 2021, the government communicated via email with 
defense counsel for the eight defendants in this case, seeking to 
reach agreement on a new trial date in light of the apparent 
unavailability of a jury on May 4, 2021.  The government received an 
email response from Michael Keough, attorney of record for defendant 
RICHARD AYVAZYAN which was joined by all defendants, stating that 
defendants object to a continuance of the trial date and any findings 
of excludable time, and request a trial date no later than June 15, 
2021.  Thus, the government submits this application on an ex parte 
basis as opposed as to by way of stipulation with the defense. 
II. 
PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
A. 
The Indictment and First Superseding Indictment 
The original 12-count Indictment in this case was filed on 
November 17, 2020.  The Indictment charged defendants RICHARD 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264     Filed 04/07/21     Page 6 of 20   Page ID
#:2235

 
2 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AYVAZYAN (“R. AYVAZYAN”), MARIETTA TERABELIAN, ARTUR AYVAZYAN (“A. 
AYVAZYAN”) and TAMARA DADYAN (“T. DADYAN”) with conspiracy to commit 
bank fraud and wire fraud as well as individual counts of bank fraud, 
wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft (the latter charge then 
against defendant R. AYVAZYAN only).  (CR 32.)   
The First Superseding Indictment was filed on March 9, 2021.  
(CR 154.)  The 33-count First Superseding Indictment adds four new 
defendants -- MANUK GRIGORYAN, ARMAN HAYRAPETYAN, EDVARD PARONYAN, 
and VAHE DADYAN (“V. DADYAN”) -- and charges all defendants with 
conspiracy to commit money laundering, in addition to the previously-
charged conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud.  (Id.)  The 
First Superseding Indictment expands the scope of the alleged 
conspiracies from at least 35 fraudulent COVID-19 disaster relief 
loan applications to over 150 fraudulent applications.  (Id.)  The 
First Superseding Indictment also includes 11 counts of wire fraud 
(up from six in the original Indictment) and eight counts of bank 
fraud (up from four), and adds aggravated identity theft counts 
against all of the original four defendants and two of the new 
defendants.  (Id.)  The new charges also include counts relating to 
criminal conduct allegedly committed after the filing of the original 
Indictment and while two of the defendants were on pretrial release 
in this case:  specifically, five counts of money laundering against 
defendant R. AYVAZYAN, and one count of attempted bank fraud against 
defendant T. DADYAN.  (Id.)  The First Superseding Indictment was 
designated as a complex case because it has eight or more defendants.  
(CR 173.) 
Defendants R. AYVAZYAN and TERABELIAN first appeared before a 
judicial officer of the Court in which the charges alleged in the 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264     Filed 04/07/21     Page 7 of 20   Page ID
#:2236

 
3 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
original Indictment were pending on December 4, 2020.  (CR 80, CR 
86.)  The Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161 and 3174(b), originally 
required that the trials of defendants R. AYVAZYAN and TERABELIAN 
commence on or before June 2, 2021.1   
Defendants A. AYVAZYAN and T. DADYAN first appeared before a 
judicial officer of the Court in which the charges alleged in the 
original Indictment were pending on November 5, 2020, initially 
appearing on a criminal complaint filed on November 3, 2020.  (CR 5, 
20.)  The Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161 and 3174(b), originally 
required that the trials of defendants A. AYVAZYAN and T. DADYAN 
commence on or before May 16, 2021.  On December 3 and 4, 2020, the 
Court set the case on the original Indictment against defendants R. 
AYVAZYAN, TERABELIAN, A. AYVAZYAN, and T. DADYAN for trial on January 
12, 2021.  (CR 57, 58, 59, 60.)  On December 22, 2020, the Court 
continued the trial date as to defendants R. AYVAZYAN, TERABELIAN, A. 
AYVAZYAN, and T. DADYAN to May 4, 2021.  (CR 103.)  
Defendants GRIGORYAN, PARONYAN, and V. DADYAN first appeared 
before a judicial officer of the Court in which the charges alleged 
in the First Superseding Indictment were pending on March 11, 2021.  
(CR 177, 191, 198.)  The Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161 and 
3174(b), required that the trials of defendants GRIGORYAN, PARONYAN, 
                     
1 Because the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit has declared 
an emergency in the Central District of California, the speedy trial 
clock for defendants R. AYVAZYAN, TERABELIAN, A. AYVAZYAN, and T. 
DADYAN is extended to 180 days.  In re Approval of Judicial Emergency 
in the Central Dist. of Cal., 955 F.3d 1140, 1141 (9th Cir. 2020).  
Specifically, under the Judicial Council’s order and 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3174, Speedy Trial trial-date clocks are extended to 180 days in 
all cases in which (a) indictments or informations are filed between 
March 13, 2020, and April 13, 2021, and (b) the defendant is not 
being detained solely because he or she is awaiting trial.  See 
Judicial Emergency, 955 F.3d at 1141-42.   
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264     Filed 04/07/21     Page 8 of 20   Page ID
#:2237

 
4 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and V. DADYAN commence on or before September 7, 2021.2  On March 11, 
2021, the Court set the case for trial as to defendants GRIGORYAN, 
PARONYAN, and V. DADYAN on May 4, 2021.  (CR 171, 181, 210.) 
Defendant HAYRAPETYAN first appeared before a judicial officer 
of the Court in which the charges alleged in the First Superseding 
Indictment were pending on March 25, 2021.  (CR 255.)  The Speedy 
Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161, required that the trial of defendant 
HAYRAPETYAN commence on or before June 3, 2021.  On March 25, 2021, 
the Court set a trial date of May 18, 2021, as to defendant 
HAYRAPETYAN. (CR 225.) 
Defendants R. AYVAZYAN, TERABELIAN, A. AYVAZYAN, T. DADYAN, 
GRIGORYAN, PARONYAN, and V. DADYAN are currently released on bond 
pending trial.  Defendant HAYRAPETYAN is detained pending trial.  The 
government estimates that its case-in-chief in this matter will last 
approximately 8-10 days.  The government has already produced 17 
volumes of discovery.  These productions include over 150,000 pages 
of loan files, bank records, information obtained from Internet 
Service Providers, and information obtained from state and federal 
government agencies, among other documents and records, as well as 
video and audio recordings and photographs.  The government has also 
made available for inspection the physical evidence seized pursuant 
to search warrants for seven properties.3 
                     
2 The 180-day provisions of the Judicial Emergency clock apply 
to defendants GRIGORYAN, PARONYAN, and V. DADYAN because they have 
not been detained pending trial.   
3 The status of discovery is currently the subject of a motion 
filed by defendant R. AYVAZYAN.  (CR 248.)  The government will 
respond to that motion separately.   
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264     Filed 04/07/21     Page 9 of 20   Page ID
#:2238

 
5 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. 
Pretrial Motions 
There currently are six pretrial motions pending before the 
Court. 
Specifically, on March 8 and 9, 2021, defendants R. AYVAZYAN and 
TERABELIAN collectively filed three motions to suppress evidence 
related to a border stop at Miami International Airport on October 
19-20, 2020.  (CR 130, 135, 136.)  On March 11, 2021, defendant R. 
AYVAZYAN filed a motion to suppress evidence, that defendant 
TERABELIAN joined, related to a search of their residence.  (CR 146, 
153.)  On March 15, 2021, defendants A. AYVAZYAN and T. DADYAN filed 
a motion to suppress evidence related to a search of their residence.  
(CR 149.)  The government has opposed these motions.  (CR 152, 188, 
207.)  As referenced above, defendant R. AYVAZYAN also filed a 
discovery motion on April 1, 2021, to which the government will 
timely respond by April 12, 2021.  (CR 248.)    
By this application, the government seeks an order from this 
Court joining the trial date for defendant HAYRAPETYAN to the other 
seven defendants and finding that the time between May 4, 2021, and 
August 24, 2021, inclusive, should be excluded from the calculation 
of the time in which trial must commence, and continuing the trial to 
August 24, 2021.  This is the second request for a continuance as to 
defendants R. AYVAZYAN, TERABELIAN, A. AYVAZYAN, and T. DADYAN.  This 
is the first request for a continuance as to defendants GRIGORYAN, 
PARONYAN, V. DADYAN, and HAYRAPETYAN.  All eight defendants are 
joined for trial and a severance has neither been sought nor granted. 
III. THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC  
The country is still grappling with a global pandemic -- one 
that has claimed over 23,000 lives in Los Angeles County, over 58,000 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264     Filed 04/07/21     Page 10 of 20   Page ID
#:2239

 
6 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
lives in California, and over 554,000 lives in the United States.4   
Even where death does not result, COVID-19 can, and does, lead to 
severe illness.  Currently, 591 individuals are hospitalized in Los 
Angeles County due to COVID-19.5  COVID-19 has also wreaked havoc on 
the economy and schools as continued outbreaks thwart efforts to 
reopen.  Emergency proclamations, restrictions, and guidance change 
daily.   
In recognition of this public health crisis, and following the 
President’s declaration of a national emergency and the California 
Governor’s declaration of a State of Emergency in response to COVID-
19, since March 13, 2020, the Court has issued general orders that 
have suspended jury selection and jury trials as a result of the 
COVID-19 pandemic.  Specifically, on March 13, 2020, the Central 
District of California entered a General Order suspending jury 
selection and jury trials scheduled to begin before April 13, 2020.  
C.D. Cal. General Order No. 20-02, In Re: Coronavirus Public 
Emergency, Order Concerning Jury Trials and Other Proceedings (Mar. 
13, 2020).     
Since then, the Court has issued numerous orders placing 
restrictions on criminal proceedings, including grand jury 
                     
4 See “LA County Daily COVID-19 Data,” Los Angeles Cnty. Dep’t 
of Public Health (updated daily), available at http:// 
www.ph.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/data/index.htm; “COVID-19 
Updates,” Cal Dep’t of Public Health (updated daily), available at 
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/Immunization/ 
ncov2019.aspx#COVID-19 by the Numbers; “Coronavirus Disease 2019 
(COVID-19),” Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (updated 
daily), available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-
updates/cases-in-us.html (last visited April 6, 2021).  
5 See “LA County Daily COVID-19 Data,” Los Angeles Cnty. Dep’t 
of Public Health (updated daily), available at http:// 
www.ph.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/data/index.htm (last visited 
April 6, 2021).  
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264     Filed 04/07/21     Page 11 of 20   Page ID
#:2240

 
7 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
proceedings, in-person hearings, and the continued suspension of jury 
trials.  See, e.g., C.D. Cal. General Order No. 20-03, In Re: 
Coronavirus Public Emergency, Order Concerning Access to Court 
Facilities (Mar. 13, 2020); C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief Judge No. 
20-042 (Mar. 19, 2020) (“Continuing Operations Plan” or “COOP Plan”); 
C.D. Cal. Orders of the Chief Judge Nos. 20-043 (Mar. 29, 2020) and 
20-044 (Mar. 31, 2020) (authorizing video appearances for certain 
hearings); see C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-186 (Dec. 
17, 2020) (“extend[ing] all findings and authorizations in Order of 
the Chief Judge No. 20-043 for an additional 90 days unless earlier 
terminated”).  The suspension of jury trials in criminal cases 
continues to remain in place “[u]ntil further notice.”  C.D. Cal. 
Notice from the Clerk, “Amended Expiration of Continuity of 
Operations Plan,” http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/news/amended-
expiration-continuity-operations-plan (Feb. 2, 2021) (“COOP 
Expiration Notice”). 
The Court’s orders were imposed based on (1) the California 
Governor’s declaration of a public-health emergency in response to 
the spread of COVID-19, as well as (2) the Centers for Disease 
Control’s advice regarding reducing the possibility of exposure to 
the virus and slowing the spread of the disease.  See, e.g., General 
Order 20-02, at 1.  The Chief Judge has recognized that, during the 
COVID-19 crisis, gatherings should be limited to no more than 10 
people and elderly and other vulnerable people should avoid person-
to-person contact.  See Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-042, at 1-2.  
The Court has more broadly recognized CDC guidance advising 
“precautions to reduce the possibility of exposure to the virus and 
slow the spread of the disease[.]”  General Order 20-09, at 1. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264     Filed 04/07/21     Page 12 of 20   Page ID
#:2241

 
8 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Consistent with this Court’s orders, the Judicial Council of the 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared an emergency in the Central 
District of California, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3174.  In re Approval 
of Judicial Emergency in the Central Dist. of Cal., 955 F.3d 1140 
(9th Cir. 2020).  The Judicial Council’s order recognizes that “[t]he 
welfare of the court, federal public defenders, CJA attorneys, U.S. 
Marshals Service, and defendants are placed at risk each time parties 
congregate in person for hearings and defendants are transported to 
and from the courthouse.”  Id. at 1144. 
Local and state governments have adopted similar policies.  On 
March 19, 2020, both Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and California 
Governor Gavin Newsom issued emergency orders requiring residents to 
“stay home,” subject to limited exceptions.  California Executive 
Order N-33-20 (March 19, 2020); accord Safer at Home, Public Order 
Under City of Los Angeles Emergency Authority ¶ 1 (March 19, 2020).  
Subject to similarly limited exceptions, all travel was prohibited.  
Safer at Home ¶ 4.  Non-essential businesses requiring in-person 
attendance by workers were ordered to cease operations.  Id. ¶ 2.  
All schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District remain closed 
to in-person classes. 
On December 3, 2020, the Acting State Public Health Officer of 
the State of California issued a Regional Stay at Home Order based on 
the “unprecedented surge in the level of community spread of COVID-
19.”  California Regional Stay at Home Order 12/03/2020 (Dec. 3, 
2020).  That order went into effect on December 6, 2020 and 
restricted business and social activities.  As the Chief Judge’s 
December 7, 2020 Order reactivating the COOP Plan recognized, ICU 
availability in the Southern California region, which includes the 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264     Filed 04/07/21     Page 13 of 20   Page ID
#:2242

 
9 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
entire Central District, fell below 15% as soon as the Regional Stay 
at Home Order went into effect.  Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-179, 
at 2.  When the COOP Plan was extended on January 6, 2021, ICU 
availability in the Southern California region was at 0.0%.  Order of 
the Chief Judge 21-002, at 1.  Although the Regional Stay at Home 
Order was lifted on January 25, 2021, ICU availability has increased, 
and case numbers have declined, COVID-19 remains extremely dangerous, 
and California counties remain subject to various restrictions. 
Based on these facts, the Court concluded that it was necessary 
to suspend criminal jury trials until further notice “in order to 
protect public health, and in order to reduce the size of public 
gatherings and reduce unnecessary travel.”  General Order 20-09, at 
1.  The Court found that “holding jury trials substantially increases 
the chances of transmitting the Coronavirus,” and it would thus 
“place prospective jurors, defendant, attorneys, and court personnel 
at unnecessary risk.”  Id. at 3.  The Court concluded that suspending 
jury trials thus served the ends of justice and outweighed the 
interests of the public and defendants in a speedy trial.  Id.  The 
Central District of California has not yet made public protocols for 
safely conducting jury trials.   
The COOP Plan ultimately expired on January 29, 2021, and the 
Court permitted the resumption of certain in-person hearings, but not 
jury trials, beginning on February 1, 2021.  See COOP Expiration 
Notice.  On March 19, 2021, the Court again relaxed some of its 
restrictions as part of its transition to Phase 2 of reopening, but 
again repeated that “no jury trials will be conducted in criminal 
cases” because of the risks identified above.  C.D. Cal. General 
Order 21-03 (Mar. 19, 2021). 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264     Filed 04/07/21     Page 14 of 20   Page ID
#:2243

 
10 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Further, all outstanding jury summons in the Central District of 
California have been cancelled due to the ongoing coronavirus 
pandemic.  As outlined in the recent notice of the Clerk of Court 
regarding the phased re-opening of the Courts, “[t]he process for 
issuing jury summonses must begin seven weeks before jury trials can 
commence.”  Notice from the Clerk re Phased Reopening of the Court, 
effective March 22, 2021 (available at 
https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/news/phased-reopening-court.)  
According to the Notice, the Court is not currently issuing jury 
summons in this District’s Eastern and Western Divisions, and does 
not anticipate doing so until approximately three weeks have passed 
since the effective date of the Notice.  Id. 
IV. 
DISCUSSION  
The Speedy Trial Act generally requires a trial to begin within 
70 days of indictment or initial appearance, whichever occurs later, 
18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1), and entitles defendants to dismissal of the 
charges (with or without prejudice) if that deadline is not met, 
§ 3162(a)(2).  
 Because the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit has declared 
an emergency in the Central District of California, that clock--with 
respect to seven of the eight defendants in this case--is extended to 
180 days.  Judicial Emergency, 955 F.3d at 1141.  Specifically, under 
the Judicial Council’s order and 18 U.S.C. § 3174, Speedy Trial 
trial-date clocks are extended to 180 days in all cases in which 
(a) indictments or informations are filed between March 13, 2020, and 
April 13, 2021, and (b) the defendant is not being detained solely 
because he or she is awaiting trial.  See Judicial Emergency, 955 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264     Filed 04/07/21     Page 15 of 20   Page ID
#:2244

 
11 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
F.3d at 1141-42.  For all defendants except defendant HARYPETYAN, who 
currently is detained pending trial, this is such a case. 
Certain periods of time, however, are excluded from the Speedy 
Trial Act’s trial clock--regardless of that clock’s initial length.  
Id. § 3161(h).  Some periods of time are automatically excluded, 
including periods of delay during the pendency of pre-trial motions.  
Id. § 3161(h)(1)(D).  Other periods of time are excluded only when a 
judge continues a trial and finds, on the record, that “the ends of 
justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of 
the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.”  Id. 
§ 3161(h)(7)(A). 
As discussed below, the time between May 4, 2021, and August 24, 
2021, inclusive, should be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act under 
the ends-of-justice provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).   
Although the General Orders address district-wide health 
concerns and make Speedy Trial Act findings under § 3161(h)(7)(A), 
individualized findings are also required.  See General Order 20-02 
at 2 ¶ 4; General Order 20-09 at 2 ¶ 6(a).  Ends-of-justice 
continuances are permissible only if “the court sets forth, in the 
record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons for 
finding that the ends of justice served by the granting of such 
continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the 
defendant in a speedy trial.”  18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).  “[W]ithout 
on-the-record findings, there can be no exclusion.”  Zedner v. United 
States, 547 U.S. 489, 507 (2006).  The period of exclusion must also 
be “specifically limited in time.”  United States v. Lewis, 611 F.3d 
1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010).  
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264     Filed 04/07/21     Page 16 of 20   Page ID
#:2245

 
12 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
As the above facts reflect, the ends of justice justify 
excludable time here.  Pandemic, like natural disaster or other 
emergency, grants this Court the discretion to order an ends-of-
justice continuance.  “Although the drafters of the Speedy Trial Act 
did not provide a particular exclusion of time for such public 
emergencies (no doubt failing to contemplate, in the more innocent 
days of 1974, that emergencies such as this would ever occur), the 
discretionary interests-of-justice exclusion” certainly covers this 
situation.  United States v. Correa, 182 F. Supp. 2d 326, 329 
(S.D.N.Y. 2001) (addressing September 11 attacks); see Furlow v. 
United States, 644 F.2d 764, 767-69 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming Speedy 
Trial exclusion after eruption of Mount St. Helens); accord United 
States v. Stallings, 701 F. App’x 164, 170-71 (3d Cir. 2017) (same, 
after prosecutor had “family emergency”); United States v. Hale, 685 
F.3d 522, 533-36 (5th Cir. 2012) (same, where case agent had 
“catastrophic family medical emergency”); United States v. Scott, 245 
Fed. Appx. 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2007) (same, after Hurricane Katrina); 
United States v. Richman, 600 F.2d 286, 292, 293-94 (1st Cir. 1979) 
(same, after a “paralyzing blizzard” and the informant was 
hospitalized). 
Here, a continuance is warranted to protect public health.  
Federal, state, and local authorities, along with this Court’s 
orders, have recognized that we are in the midst of a grave public-
health emergency requiring people to take extreme measures to limit 
contact.  The Central District of California has not made public an 
established jury-trial protocol at present; instead, the Court has 
concluded that jury trials would “place prospective jurors, 
defendant, attorneys, and court personnel at unnecessary risk.”  
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264     Filed 04/07/21     Page 17 of 20   Page ID
#:2246

 
13 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
General Order 20-09 at 3 ¶ 6(a).  In the absence of such a district-
wide protocol, proceeding with a jury trial is unsafe. 
An ends-of-justice delay is particularly apt in this case 
because: 
• As reflected in the recently filed First Superseding 
Indictment, this is a complex case involving pandemic-
related fraud, money laundering, and identity theft charges 
against eight defendants. 
• Assuming all eight defendants go to trial, the courtroom 
will need to accommodate 23 individuals at counsel’s table 
(including three prosecutors, eight defendants, and 12 
defense attorneys). 
• This trial involves numerous witnesses who must travel, and 
thus would put themselves and others at risk if they were 
to come to court during this crisis.  Indeed, multiple 
public agencies have recommended against unnecessary 
travel.  Specifically, here, the government intends to call 
representatives from a number of the relevant financial 
institutions to testify at trial, many of whom are located 
out of state.   
• This case is being prosecuted jointly by the United States 
Attorney’s Office and the Department of Justice’s Fraud 
Section.  Department of Justice Trial Attorney Christopher 
Fenton, who is serving as co-counsel on this case, would 
thus need to travel from Washington D.C. for the trial in 
this matter.  
 In addition, due to the restrictions imposed by current public-
health concerns--particularly given the designation of this case as 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264     Filed 04/07/21     Page 18 of 20   Page ID
#:2247

 
14 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
complex based on the number of defendants--it is also unreasonable to 
expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial 
itself within Speedy Trial Act time limits.  Four of the eight 
defendants charged in the First Superseding Indictment were added to 
this case less than one month ago.  Upon unsealing the First 
Superseding Indictment on March 11, 2021 (following the return of the 
First Superseding Indictment by the grand jury on March 9, 2021), the 
government timely produced a significant amount of discovery 
pertaining in substantial part to the new charges and new defendants 
alleged in the First Superseding Indictment.  Under these unusual and 
emergent circumstances, denial of a continuance is likely to deny all 
counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking 
into account the exercise of due diligence.  See 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3161(h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(ii).   
Moreover, as previously explained, the recent Notice of the 
Clerk re Phased Reopening of the Court, effective March 22, 2021, 
stated that the Court did not anticipate issuing juror summons for 
the Western Division of the Central District of California until 
approximately three weeks had passed since March 22, 2021.  Thus, 
given that jury trials in the Western Division cannot commence until 
seven weeks after jury summons are issued, it does not appear 
possible for there to be a jury available for trial on May 4, 2021.  
Under these circumstances, the failure to grant such a continuance in 
the proceeding would be likely to make a continuation of such 
proceeding impossible, or result in a miscarriage of justice.  See 18 
U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(i).  A continuance on any of these 
grounds is not based on the general congestion of the court’s 
calendar, or lack of diligent preparation or failure to obtain 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264     Filed 04/07/21     Page 19 of 20   Page ID
#:2248

 
15 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
available witnesses on the part of the attorneys for the Government.  
See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(C). 
Finally, there are additional grounds for a continuance and 
exclusion of time based on the current circumstances of this case.  
As previously noted, there presently are six pending pretrial 
motions, the earliest of which was filed on March 8, 2021, such that 
the time period from March 8, 2021 through the present is 
automatically excluded from the time within which the trial of this 
case must commence.  18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(1)(D).  All of the 
defendants also are joined for trial with a codefendant as to whom 
the time for trial has not run and no motion for severance has been 
granted.  18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(6). 
V. 
CONCLUSION 
Based on the foregoing, the Court should enter a case-specific 
order finding excludable time under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(1)(D), 
(h)(6), (h)(7)(A), and (h)(7)(B)(i)-(ii), and 3174(b).  However, 
nothing in the Court’s order should preclude a finding that other 
provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time 
periods are excluded from the period within which trial must 
commence. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 264     Filed 04/07/21     Page 20 of 20   Page ID
#:2249

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.264.0.pdf

Size

170,244 bytes

SHA-256

c6e6ecf895ecbe78934825ad44b01c80522df1c5f46197cf8f8f0f2ee6632455

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.264.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)