NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION in Limine to Admit Physical Evidence of Gold Coins and… — USA v. Ayvazyan et al (Dkt. 540)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW · Doc. 540 · 2021-06-16 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

The government's motion in limine to admit physical evidence of gold coins and watches seized from the residence of Richard Ayvazyan and Marietta Terabelian, filed June 16, 2021 as Doc. 540 in USA v. Ayvazyan et al, No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. It states that a search of the Topeka Drive residence in Tarzana on November 5, 2020 yielded approximately 60 gold coins and approximately ten luxury watches, and that jeweler records show 60 gold coins bought for $122,960. The government expects evidence to tie the purchases in part to fraudulent COVID-19 relief loan proceeds, including three watches bought for $11,000, $37,000 and $51,000. It argues the items are relevant, including to Terabelian's stated defense that she "wasn't in on it," and not barred by Rule 403. The motion runs 12 pages.

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

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 
SCOTT M. GARRINGER 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
SCOTT PAETTY (Cal. Bar No. 274719) 
CATHERINE AHN (Cal. Bar No. 248286) 
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) 894-6527/2424/3819 
Facsimile: (213) 894-6269/0141 
E-mail: 
Scott.Paetty@usdoj.gov 
 
Catherine.S.Ahn@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 
No. CR 20-579(A)-SVW 
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO 
ADMIT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF GOLD 
COINS AND WATCHES SEIZED FROM 
DEFENDANTS RICHARD AYVAZYAN’S AND 
MARIETTA TERABELIAN’S RESIDENCE 
Hearing Date: June 17, 2021 
Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m. 
Trial Date:   June 15, 2021 
Location:     Courtroom of the  
             Hon. Stephen V.  
             Wilson 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 540     Filed 06/16/21     Page 1 of 12   Page ID
#:6452

 
 
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
      “Anton Kudiumov,” 
ARMAN HAYRAPETYAN, 
EDVARD PARONYAN, 
aka “Edvard Paronian” and 
    “Edward Paronyan,” and 
VAHE DADYAN, 
 
Defendants. 
 
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel 
of record, the Acting United States Attorney for the Central 
District of California, Assistant United States Attorneys Scott 
Paetty, Catherine Ahn, and Brian Faerstein, and Department of 
Justice Trial Attorney Christopher Fenton, hereby files this motion 
in limine seeking to admit physical evidence of certain gold coins 
and luxury watches seized from defendants Richard Ayvazyan’s and 
Marietta Terabelian’s residence as part of the government’s 
investigation in this case.   
This motion is based upon the attached memorandum of points and 
authorities, the files and records in this case, and such further 
evidence and argument as the Court may permit. 
Dated: June 16, 2021 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
TRACY L. WILKISON 
Acting United States Attorney 
 
SCOTT M. GARRINGER 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
 
      /s/ 
 
SCOTT PAETTY 
CATHERINE AHN 
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 540     Filed 06/16/21     Page 2 of 12   Page ID
#:6453

 
 
1 
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 
The government respectfully moves in limine for a ruling from 
the Court that the government may admit at trial physical evidence 
of gold coins and luxury watches seized from the residence of 
defendants Richard Ayvazyan (“R. Ayvazyan”) and Marietta Terabelian 
(“Terabelian”) on November 5, 2020.   
This evidence is directly relevant and highly probative of 
material issues in this case, particularly in light of defendant 
Terabelian’s multiple assertions in her opening statement that she 
“wasn’t in on it.”  The high probative value of this evidence is not 
substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, nor would 
it constitute cumulative evidence or waste the jury’s time.  To the 
contrary, admission of the evidence would obviate the need for 
prolonged descriptive testimony regarding the items and allow the 
government a more efficient means of presenting highly probative 
evidence regarding the items at trial. 
More fundamentally, Federal Rule of Evidence 403 does not 
require the government to “sanitize its case” or to “tell its story 
in a monotone.”  United States v. Gartmon, 146 F.3d 1015, 1021 (D.C. 
Cir. 1998).  The government should be permitted to present “the full 
evidentiary force of the case as the [g]overnment chooses to present 
it,” Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 186-87 (1997) -
particularly where there is minimal danger of “unfair” prejudice or 
other Rule 403 concerns as there is here.  For the reasons explained 
below, the visual depictions of the gold coins and luxury watches 
are an important component of the government’s trial presentation, 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 540     Filed 06/16/21     Page 3 of 12   Page ID
#:6454

 
 
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
are necessary to rebutting defenses raised in defendants’ openings, 
and should be admissible through physical evidence at trial. 
II. 
RELEVANT BACKGROUND  
A. 
Gold Coins and Luxury Watches Seized From Topeka Residence 
On November 5, 2020, law enforcement executed a federal search 
warrant at a $3.25 million mansion located on Topeka Drive in 
Tarzana (the “Topeka Residence”) at which defendants R. Ayvazyan and 
Terabelian resided.  The government’s investigation to that point 
had identified the Topeka Residence as having been purchased in the 
names of defendants R. Ayvazyan and Terabelian using proceeds from 
multiple suspected fraudulent COVID-19 disaster relief loans 
obtained in 2020.  (See Affidavit, In the Matter of the Search of [] 
Topeka Drive Tarzana California 91356, No. 2:20-MJ-05282 (“SW 
Aff.”), ¶¶ 23 (Under Seal); see also ECF 1, ¶¶ 16-26.) 
The investigation also revealed that a substantial portion of 
the stolen disaster relief funds had been funneled through various 
bank accounts, including a bank account opened in the name of 
defendant Terabelian’s father, N.T., after he was deceased, and used 
to purchase over $400,000 in goods from jewelers.  (SW Aff. ¶ 62.f.; 
see also Govt Trial Exhibits (“GEX”) 34, 39.)  The stolen disaster 
relief funds also were used to purchase luxury watches (that were 
delivered to one of defendant R. Ayvazyan’s properties) and other 
luxury personal items.  (SW Aff. ¶ 62.f; GEX 37, 39.) 
During the search of the Topeka Residence on November 5, 2020, 
law enforcement seized, among other things, approximately 60 gold 
coins.  As the evidence at trial will demonstrate, the government 
separately obtained records from Piccadilly Jewelers reflecting that 
60 gold coins had been purchased purportedly by N.T. for the 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 540     Filed 06/16/21     Page 4 of 12   Page ID
#:6455

 
 
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
aggregate price of $122,960.  (See GEX 39.)  The government 
anticipates the evidence at trial will show that the funds for this 
purchase derived, in part, from the proceeds of two fraudulent 
COVID-19 disaster relief loans submitted on behalf of the purported 
company “Mod Interiors, Inc.,” both in the name of N.T. (defendant 
Terabelian’s then recently deceased father).  (See GEX 2.o, 5.m.)  
The government has marked the gold coins with a placeholder under 
GEX 56 in its exhibit list filed with the Court. 
Agents also seized from the Topeka Residence approximately ten 
luxury watches, including at least three watches the government was 
able to determine based on serial numbers were purchased from a 
retailer called Gentleman Timepieces in July and August 2020, for 
the prices of $11,000, $37,000, and $51,000, respectively.1  (See GEX 
37.)  The records from Gentleman Timepieces reflect that defendant 
R. Ayvazyan purchased at least five additional luxury watches from 
this retailer.  (See id.)  Similar to the gold coins, the government 
anticipates the evidence at trial will show the purchases of at 
least three of these luxury watches from Gentleman Timepieces 
derived, in part, from fraudulent COVID-19 disaster relief proceeds.  
The government also has included in its exhibit list a placeholder 
exhibit under GEX 56 for the watches.  
 
1 Defendants moved to suppress the evidence of the luxury 
watches and gold coins (in addition to other evidence seized during 
the search of the Topeka Residence).  The Court denied defendants’ 
motion to suppress this evidence.  (ECF 296.)  Even though the Court 
ordered the government to return five of the ten watches to 
defendants, the Court nonetheless permitted the government to use 
evidence of these additional five watches at trial.  (See id. at 39-
40.)  The government already has returned those five additional 
watches to defendants and seeks to admit at trial physical evidence 
of the five remaining watches in its possession.  The government, 
however, has photographs (produced to defendants) of the five 
additional watches that it already returned. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 540     Filed 06/16/21     Page 5 of 12   Page ID
#:6456

 
 
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
At trial, in addition to the records reflecting the purchases 
of much of the evidence described above, the government intends to 
offer as physical evidence the 60 gold coins (contained in a bag and 
marked as one exhibit) and the five watches that remain in the 
government’s possession that were seized from the Topeka Residence.2 
B. 
Discussion of Gold Coins and Luxury Watches During June 
14, 2021 Pretrial Conference 
During the pretrial conference on June 14, 2021, in connection 
with a discussion regarding jury selection, counsel for defendant 
Terabelian stated a concern that photographs of the gold coins and 
luxury watches seized from the Topeka Residence could cause, for 
some unspecified reason, potential jurors on the panel not to want 
to serve on the jury in this case.  In response to this concern, the 
Court raised the issue as to whether it would be necessary for the 
government to show photographs of the gold coins and luxury watches 
to the jury in addition to testimony about the seized items.  During 
the hearing, the government did not provide the Court with a 
complete presentation of the relevant factual and legal issues to 
allow the Court to conduct a thorough Rule 403 balancing analysis of 
this evidence.  The government does so now. 
III. ARGUMENT 
A. 
Evidence Regarding the Gold Coins and Luxury Watches is 
Relevant Under Rules 401 and 402 
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, evidence is relevant if 
“(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than 
 
2 The government also may seek to admit photographs of this 
specific evidence that have previously been produced to the defense 
and are encompassed within the placeholder for GEX 56 in the 
government’s exhibit list. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 540     Filed 06/16/21     Page 6 of 12   Page ID
#:6457

 
 
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
it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence 
in determining the action.”  Fed. R. Evid. 401.  Relevant evidence 
is presumptively admissible.  See Fed. R. Evid. 402. 
Physical evidence of the gold coins and luxury watches seized 
from defendants R. Ayvazyan’s and Terabelian’s residence are 
unquestionably relevant to facts of consequence in this case – 
particularly in light of defendant Terabelian’s defense, as 
articulated in her opening statement, that she had no knowledge of 
any aspects of the charged conduct.   
Defendants are charged, among other things, with conspiracy to 
commit bank fraud and wire fraud through which they and their 
coconspirators obtained millions of dollars in fraudulent loans from 
the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) and Economic Injury Disaster 
Loan (“EIDL”) program.3  (See ECF 154, Count 1.)  The manner and 
means of the charged bank/wire fraud conspiracy specifically allege 
that defendants spent the fraudulent loan proceeds on, among other 
things, “gold coins, diamonds, jewelry, [and] luxury watches,” along 
with residential properties and other high-end personal goods 
prohibited under the PPP and EIDL programs.  (Id., ¶ 31.f.) 
Defendants are further charged with a money laundering 
 
3 The Court approved the government’s redacted superseding 
indictment for trial, which removes the original paragraph 32 from 
the First Superseding Indictment specifying that the alleged charged 
bank/wire fraud conspiracy involved at least 151 fraudulent PPP/EIDL 
loan applications seeking a total of at least $21.9 million in 
proceeds.  (See ECF 422-2.)  However, the fraudulent loan 
applications described in the overt acts of the trial superseding 
indictment, standing on their own, add up to more than $3.24 
million.  To be clear, the loans included in the overt acts are 
provided merely as examples of the numerous other fraudulent 
PPP/EIDL loans submitted as part of the conspiracy.  However, 
through just that exemplary subset of loans, the jury will be 
considering fraudulent conduct involving millions of dollars. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 540     Filed 06/16/21     Page 7 of 12   Page ID
#:6458

 
 
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
conspiracy arising out of their use of the fraudulent PPP/EIDL 
proceeds for their own personal benefit.  (See id., Count 26.)  The 
superseding indictment similarly alleges that defendants purchased, 
among other things, “gold coins” and “luxury watches” in furtherance 
of their conspiracy to launder the proceeds of their fraudulent 
scheme.  (Id., ¶ 53.c.)  Thus, not only were the gold coins and 
luxury watches among the fruits of defendants’ conspiracy to commit 
bank fraud and wire fraud (not to mention the substantive wire fraud 
and bank fraud counts also alleged in the superseding indictment), 
but also they constitute the means through which defendants 
laundered a portion of the proceeds of the fraud. 
Evidence of the appearance of the gold coins and luxury watches 
also is directly relevant to defendant Terabelian’s stated defense 
that she “wasn’t in on it.”  Defendant will be asking the jury to 
believe that she lived with her husband, defendant R. Ayvazyan, as 
he amassed millions of dollars in proceeds from fraudulent PPP/EIDL 
loans, spending the money on lavish items (including the 60 gold 
coins and multiple luxury watches) found in her own house, all 
without her knowledge or raising any concerns in her mind.  
Testimony only tells half the story.  The physical appearance of 
these opulent items - including a $51,000 18-karat rose gold watch 
and a stack of gold coins that, by their description alone, may not 
be recognizable items to some members of the jury - is highly 
probative of the items’ significant value, and defendant 
Terabelian’s knowledge of that fact.  The government needs to be 
able to show the jury the actual seized items, so the jury can 
evaluate the credibility of her defense that she was just a 
“homemaker” and had no reason to suspect her husband may have been 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 540     Filed 06/16/21     Page 8 of 12   Page ID
#:6459

 
 
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
engaging in financial fraud.   
Thus, the visual evidence of the gold coins and luxury watches 
is directly relevant to the charges the jury will be considering and 
highly probative of the fruits and means of the charged conspiracies 
and defendant Terabelian’s state of mind. 
B. 
The High Probative Value of the Gold Coins and Luxury 
Watches Evidence is Not Substantially Outweighed by the 
Danger of Unfair Prejudice Under Rule 403 
Under Rule 403, the high probative value of this evidence is 
not “substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the 
following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the 
jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative 
evidence.”  Fed. R. Evid. 403.  Rule 403 does not preclude evidence 
that prejudices a defendant’s case, “as all unfavorable evidence 
about a defendant does” – it only precludes evidence that unfairly 
prejudices a defendant’s case.  United States v. Blitz, 151 F.3d 
1002, 1009 (9th Cir. 1998). 
Courts have explained that “Rule 403 does not provide a shield 
for defendants who engage in outrageous acts, permitting only the 
crimes of Caspar Milquetoasts to be described fully to a jury.  It 
does not generally require the government to sanitize its case, to 
deflate witnesses’ testimony, or to tell its story in a monotone.  
It does not bar powerful, or even ‘prejudicial’ evidence.”  United 
States v. Gartmon, 146 F.3d 1015, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (citing Old 
Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 192 (1997)) (internal citation 
omitted).  Indeed, the Supreme Court recognizes that “the familiar, 
standard rule that the prosecution is entitled to prove its case by 
evidence of its own choice, or, more exactly, that a criminal 
defendant may not stipulate or admit his way out of the full 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 540     Filed 06/16/21     Page 9 of 12   Page ID
#:6460

 
 
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
evidentiary force of the case as the Government chooses to present 
it” is “unquestionably true as a general matter.”  Old Chief, 519 
U.S. at 186-87. 
Guided by these principles, courts have found admissible under 
Rule 403 far more potentially inflammatory evidence than the visual 
depiction of the gold coins and luxury watches at issue here.   
For example, in Gartmon, a case involving charges of interstate 
transportation of securities obtained by fraud and money laundering, 
the D.C. Circuit affirmed the admission of witness testimony that 
defendant had threatened her by “put[ting] a gun up [her] vagina . . 
. [and] told [her] that [she] will listen to everything he says and 
do as he says.”  Gartmon, 146 F.3d at 1019.  The court acknowledged 
that “there [wa]s no question but that the conduct portrayed by the 
testimony was outrageous, and that it may dramatically have injured 
[defendant’s] case.”  Id. at 1021.  But the court explained that 
“[a]lthough there may have been some risk that a recitation of the 
facts of the incident would evoke emotions in the courtroom, that 
risk was comparatively small, and it alone did not render the 
testimony ‘unfair’ or ‘substantially outweigh[]’ its probative 
value.”  Id. at 1021.  The court did not require the government to 
“sanitize” its case. 
Similarly, in United States v. Gloster, 185 F.3d 910 (D.C. Cir. 
1999), defendant attempted to limit under Rule 403 evidence of his 
gun being loaded to testimony about the ammunition but not admission 
of the ammunition itself.  Id. at 913-914.  The court rejected 
defendant’s unfair prejudice argument, explaining that “[t]here is 
no question . . . that physical evidence is an important part of an 
effective trial presentation and that the ‘persuasive power of the 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 540     Filed 06/16/21     Page 10 of 12   Page ID
#:6461

 
 
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
concrete and particular is often essential to the capacity of jurors 
to satisfy the obligations that the law places on them.’”  Id. at 
913 (quoting Old Chief, 519 U.S. at 172).  See also United States v. 
DeMuro, 677 F.3d 550 (3d Cir. 2012) (testimonial evidence regarding 
defendants’ spending on “vacations, jewelry, cars, and parties . . . 
not so inflammatory as to carry a great risk of prejudice,” 
explaining the evidence was in part “relevant to the conspiracy [to 
defraud the United States] charge as it was probative of 
[defendants’] conspiratorial purpose”); Honie v. Crowther, Case No. 
2:07-CV-628 JAR, 2017 WL 6398616, at *6 (D. Utah Dec. 13, 2017) 
(affirming admission of graphic photographs of deceased victim, 
defendant “covered in blood,” and children “with blood on them,” 
explaining that the “State was not required to rely exclusively on 
testimony to prove its case”) (citing Old Chief, 519 U.S. at 187-88, 
and Gartmon, 146 F.3d at 1021). 
The same is true here.  The government seeks to admit physical 
evidence of the fruits and means of defendants’ alleged bank/wire 
fraud and money laundering conspiracies.  The government should not 
be required to “sanitize” this highly probative evidence for the 
jury nor to “tell its story in a monotone.”  Gartmon, 146 F.3d at 
1021.  The admission here of the visual depictions of the gold coins 
and luxury watches is “an important part of an effective trial 
presentation,” as “the ‘persuasive power of the concrete and 
particular is often essential to the capacity of jurors to satisfy 
the obligations that the law places on them.’”  Gloster, 185 F.3d at 
913 (quoting Old Chief, 519 U.S. at 172).   
On the other side of the balance, there is little in the way of 
“unfair” prejudice about the physical evidence of the gold coins and 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 540     Filed 06/16/21     Page 11 of 12   Page ID
#:6462

 
 
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
luxury watches.  They accurately and effectively reflect the high 
value of the expenditures defendants illegally made in laundering 
the proceeds of their fraudulently obtained PPP/EIDL loans.  
In addition, the admission of this evidence will conserve, not 
waste, time during trial.  Fed. R. Evid. 403.  The government will 
be able to limit the sponsoring witness’s testimony regarding 
detailed descriptions of each of the luxury watches and the gold 
coins seized from the Topeka Residence, should the government be 
permitted to admit into evidence the actual items for ease of the 
jury’s review.  Nor is presenting this highly probative evidence 
through both witness testimony and physical evidence cumulative 
under Rule 403.  The physical evidence will complement and aid in 
the witness’s testimony about these items, and, with the exception 
of the Gentleman Timepiece witness who sold defendant R. Ayvazyan at 
least three of the luxury watches seized from his home and the 
government’s summary witness regarding flow of funds, the government 
does not anticipate other witnesses testifying about these items. 
In sum, the visual images of the gold coins and luxury watches 
are relevant to facts of consequence and are highly probative of 
elements of the charged offenses, and present no credible danger of 
unfair prejudice that substantially outweighs their probative value. 
IV. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully requests 
the Court order that physical evidence of the gold coins and luxury 
watches seized from the Topeka Residence be admissible at trial.   
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 540     Filed 06/16/21     Page 12 of 12   Page ID
#:6463

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.540.0.pdf

Size

160,007 bytes

SHA-256

4693d99ba20b3cd0b2491b57b20d4fdd25fc3126c06054686ae1152f1aac9a35

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.540.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)