Court filing
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM filed by Defendant Arman Hayrapetyan — USA v. Ayvazyan et al (Dkt. 1037)
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2021-10-07 |
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW · Doc. 1037 · 2021-10-07 · Docket on CourtListener
Summary
Defendant Arman Hayrapetyan's sentencing memorandum, filed October 7, 2021 as Document 1037 in United States v. Ayvazyan et al., No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, for a hearing on October 18, 2021 before Judge Stephen V. Wilson. It states that he pleaded guilty on June 21, 2021 to Count 26 of the First Superseding Indictment, conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), and that the PSR calculated a total offense level of 12 with Criminal History Category I. The memorandum reports that the Probation Office recommended 5 months in custody and 5 months of home confinement, while the government sought the full term in custody. Seeking departures for minor role and military service to reach total offense level 9, the defense asks for time served and one year of supervised release.
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
Jilbert Tahmazian, Esq. (SBN 143574)
TAHMAZIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
1518 West Glenoaks Boulevard
Glendale, California 91201
Telephone No. (818) 242-8201
Facsimile No. (818) 242-8246
jilbert@jilbertlaw.com
Attorney for Defendant,
ARMAN HAYRAPETYAN
UNITED STATES DISCTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTERAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATED OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
ARMAN HAYRAPETYAN,
DEFENDANT.
CASE NO.: 2:20-CR-00579(A)-6
ARMAN HAYRAPETYAN’S
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Hearing Date: October 18th, 2021
Time: 11 AM
Courtroom: 10 A
Judge: Hon. Stephen V. Wilson
TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN V. WILSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
Defendant Arman Hayrapetyan (hereinafter “Defendant” or “Hayrapetyan”) by and through
his counsel of record, Jilbert Tahmazian, hereby files its sentencing position.
- 1 -
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1037 Filed 10/07/21 Page 1 of 14 Page ID
#:17150
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
1.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. - 4 -
A. PRETRIAL SERVICES SENTENCING GUIDELINE CALCULATION ................................. - 4 -
2.
SENTENCING GUIDELINES ARE MERELY ADVISORY .......................................... - 5 -
3.
THE DEFENSE’S SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION ............................................. - 6 -
A. NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE ....................................................... - 7 -
B. HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEFENDANT ............................................. - 7 -
C. DEPARTURES BASED ON MINIMAL/MINOR ROLE ......................................................... - 9 -
D. DEPARTURES BASED ON DEFENDANT’S MILITARY SERVICE ................................... - 12 -
4.
THE NEED FOR THE SENTENCE IMPOSED 18 U.S.C. §3553(A) ............................ - 13 -
5.
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... - 14 -
- 2 -
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1037 Filed 10/07/21 Page 2 of 14 Page ID
#:17151
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
CASES
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) ......................................................... - 5 -
Blakely v. Washington, 124....................................................................................... - 5 -
United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756 (2005) ................................................. - 5 -
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2008) ..................................... - 13 -
United States v. Denardi, 892 F.2d 269.................................................................... - 6 -
United States v. Petti, 973 F.2d 1441, 1447 (9th Cir. 1992) .................................. - 10 -
United States v. Rushton, 738 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2013) ......................................... - 10 -
United States v. Salgado, 745 F.3d 1135, 1139 (11th Cir. 2014) ........................... - 10 -
United States v. Zweber, 913 F.2d 705, 709 (9th Cir. 1990) .................................. - 10 -
STATUTES
18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) .................................................................................................. - 7 -
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) .................................................................................................. - 5 -
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a) .................................................................................................. - 9 -
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) .................................................................................................. - 9 -
U.S.S.G. § 5H1.11 .................................................................................................. - 12 -
- 3 -
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1037 Filed 10/07/21 Page 3 of 14 Page ID
#:17152
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
1. INTRODUCTION
On June 21st, 2021 Defendant Arman Hayrapetyan pled guilty to Count 26 of the Government’s
First Superseding Indictment which charged defendant of violating 18 U.S.C ' 1956(h): conspiracy
to commit money laundering. The Court ordered a Presentence Investigation Report [hereafter
PSR], and sentencing has been set for September 20th, 2021. The U.S. Probation Office (“USPO”)
filed the PSR on August 13th, 2021 calculating a total offense level of 12 and a Criminal History
Category (“CHC”) of I for the Defendant. Based on Defendant’s history, offense, and acceptance
of responsibility, the USPO recommends that the Defendant be committed to the custody of the
BOP for a period of 5 months 5 months in home confinement, followed by two years of supervised
release. On September 13th, 2021 the Government submitted their sentencing position wherein they
agree with the USPO’s calculation, but contend the sentence should not be split into a term of
custody and a term of house arrest. [ECF 967] Instead, they argue Defendant should serve the full
term under the custody of the BOP. Id.
A. PRETRIAL SERVICES SENTENCING GUIDELINE CALCULATION
The PSR provides the following United States sentencing Guideline (“Guidelines”) calculations:
Base Offense Level: 12
Special Offense Characteristics: +2
Acceptance of Responsibility: -2
TOTAL OFFENSE LEVEL: 12
The PSR provides the following Criminal History calculation for the defendant: I
- 4 -
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1037 Filed 10/07/21 Page 4 of 14 Page ID
#:17153
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
The PSR recommends that Defendant serve 5 months in the custody of the BOP followed by
5 months of home detention and supervised release for two years. The Government agrees to this
calculation, but differs in their sentencing recommendation. The Government suggests that the
Defendant be placed in the custody of the BOP for the full ten months. In part, they argue that such
a sentence is necessary to impress upon the Defendant the seriousness of his conduct and is
“appropriate based on an individualized assessment of this defendant and the circumstances of his
volitional involvement in conduct he knew to be wrong.” [ECF 967; pg. 6]
2. SENTENCING GUIDELINES ARE MERELY ADVISORY
In United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court ruled that its holdings in Blakely v.
Washington and Apprendi v. New Jersey also apply to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. (United
States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756 (2005); Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004);
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)).
The Court expressly found that parts of the Federal Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, chiefly
those that make the Sentencing Guidelines mandatory, are incompatible with the Sixth Amendment.
The Court severed and excised those provisions from the Act, “mak[ing] the [Federal Sentencing]
Guidelines effectively advisory.” (Booker at 757). Under Booker, sentencing courts must treat the
guidelines as just one of a number of sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The
primary directive in Section 3553(a) is for sentencing courts to “impose a sentence sufficient, but
not greater than necessary” to comply with the following sentencing purposes (§ 3553(a)(2)):
a. reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for
the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
b. afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
- 5 -
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1037 Filed 10/07/21 Page 5 of 14 Page ID
#:17154
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
c. protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
d. provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or
other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.
In determining the minimally sufficient sentence, § 3553(a) further directs sentencing courts
to consider the following factors:
a. “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history
and characteristics of the defendant” (§ 3553(a)(1));
b. “the kinds of sentences available” (§ 3553(a)(3));
c. “the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.” (§ 3553(a)(7)).
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3661, “no limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the
background, character, and conduct of [the defendant] which a court of the United
States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.” In every
case, a sentencing court must consider all of the § 3553(a) factors, not just the guidelines, in
determining a sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to meet the goals of
sentencing. Where the guidelines conflict with other sentencing factors set forth in
§ 3553(a), these statutory sentencing factors should generally trump the guidelines. (United States v.
Denardi, 892 F.2d 269, 276-77).
3. THE DEFENSE’S SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION
Defendant respectfully requests by way of this Sentencing Memorandum that the Court depart
from the sentencing calculation offered by Pretrial Services, and instead, sentence the Defendant to
- 6 -
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1037 Filed 10/07/21 Page 6 of 14 Page ID
#:17155
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
time served, and if the Defendant is sentenced to any additional time it be done as home detention,
as well as a term of one year supervised release. The total offense calculation would go as follows:
Base Offense Level: 12
Special Offense Characteristics: +2
Acceptance of Responsibility: -2
Minor Role: -2
Military Service Departure: -1
TOTAL OFFENSE LEVEL: 9
CRIMINAL HISTORY CATERGORY: I
(1) THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE AND THE HISTORY
AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEFENDANT 18 U.S. C. § 3553(A)(1)
A. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense
Arman Hayrapetyan pled guilty to one count of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h): conspiracy to commit
money laundering. These charges stem from an expansive and intricate bank and wire fraud
operation conducted by Mr. Hayrapetyan’s co-defendants. There “is insufficient information to hold
Hayrapetyan accountable for the underlying bank fraud and wire fraud,” thus he is only being
charged for the conspiracy to commit money laundering. [PSR, pg. 11]
B. History and Characteristics of the Defendant
Arman Hayrapetyan was born on July 8th, 1982 in the Lori Province of Armenia,
approximately two and a half hours outside of the country’s capital Yerevan. Hayrapetyan and his
younger brother, Alexander Hayrapetyan, were born to a military family where they quickly fell in
love with the idea of service. Both Hayrapetyan and his brother Alexander followed their father’s
- 7 -
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1037 Filed 10/07/21 Page 7 of 14 Page ID
#:17156
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
footsteps and enrolled in the military. From 2003-2018 Hayrapetyan served in the Armenian army
as well as with the NATO forces. [Exhibit A] Additionally during this time, Hayrapetyan was able
to pursue higher education, eventually receiving both a bachelor’s degree and the Armenian
equivalent of a Juris Doctorate.
During the course of his military service there were times Hayrapetyan served alongside his
brother, but never in the same division. Tragically, in 2020 Alexander Hayrapetyan was killed in
action during the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Alexander’s death has had a pronounced impact
on Hayrapetyan and he still struggles when speaking about his late brother. After his brother’s
passing, Hayrapetyan took on the role of financially supporting his brother’s family as well as his
own1.
In 2019, Hayrapetyan withdrew from the Armenian army and relocated to Glendale,
California. His immigration was largely due to backlash he received from reports he made
describing corruption and abuse of power among Armenian Army generals. Upon growing concerns
for his own safety, he filed for political asylum and was legally permitted to remain in the U.S.
Since his arrival Hayrapetyan has been employed by P&I Medical Transport where he transports
dialysis patients to and from their appointments. The money he earns from this job helps support his
remaining family in Armenia.2
Unlike his co-defendants, Hayrapetyan both lived, and continues to live, a modest life. He
resides in a 725 square foot studio cottage with a single closet and bathroom. The residence is
1 This includes: Hayrapetyan’s parents, his wife and daughter as well as Alexander’s widow and two children ages 6
and 4.
2 Given the number of people that are presently financially dependent on Mr. Hayrapetyan, we urge the Court to take
into account the impact any term of confinement will have on Mr. Hayrapetyan’s ability to earn an income, and in turn,
care for his fractured family.
- 8 -
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1037 Filed 10/07/21 Page 8 of 14 Page ID
#:17157
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
“orderly and modestly furnished”. [PSR, pg. 14] A photograph of his late brother is placed next to a
lit candle marking the center of the room. This is a far cry from luxury homes in Tarzana and Palm
Desert. He does not own any “gold coins, diamonds, jewelry, luxury watches, fine imported
furnishings, designer handbags, clothing [or] a Harley-Davidson motorcycle.”3 Hayrapetyan does
not even own a computer. He spends his limited free time calling his wife Anna and his daughter
Gayane back in Armenia, as well as attending his local Church for service. [Exhibit B] Hayrapetyan
had hoped to have his family move to the U.S. with him, but COVID has delayed this process.
Hayrapetyan is exceptionally remorseful and contrite for his involvement in this crime.
Taking into account the added stress and trauma of his brother’s passing and confinement in MDC
LA during a global pandemic, Mr. Hayrapetyan has exhibited a great deal of fortitude and
composure. To that end, we respectfully urge the Court to recognize the profound significance of
his time served and the extent to which that confinement has sufficiently impressed upon Mr.
Hayrapetyan the seriousness of his conduct. 4 While not without fault, Mr. Hayrapetyan has endured
a great deal given the circumstances. Conceding that, at its core, sentencing is intended to impress
upon the Defendant the gravity of their crime, the months Hayrapetyan has served to date, function
a great deal to that end.
C. Departures Based on Minimal/Minor Role
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b), makes clear that “a defendant is entitled to a two-point
downward adjustment as a "minor" participant if he is deemed "less culpable than most other
3 “Four California Residents Found Guilty of Scheming to Fraudulently Obtain Millions of Dollars in COVID-19 Relief
Programs” [https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four-california-residents-found-guilty-scheming-fraudulently-obtain-
millions-dollars-covid-19]
4 Arman Hayrapetyan was in the custody of the BOP at MDC LA from March 25th, 2021 to June 4th, 2021.
- 9 -
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1037 Filed 10/07/21 Page 9 of 14 Page ID
#:17158
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
participants but his role could not be described as minimal." [U.S.S. G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 3].
Alternatively, “if his role is so insignificant as to be considered "minimal," a four -
point adjustment is warranted.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a). United States v. Antonakeas, 255 F.3d 714,
727 (9th Cir. 2001)
The sentencing guidelines prescribe a five factor factual inquiry intended to be used in
determining if a defendant’s actions meet the threshold described. They are:
(1) the degree to which the defendant understood the scope and structure of the
criminal activity;
(2) the degree to which the defendant participated in planning or organizing the
criminal activity;
(3) the degree to which the defendant exercised decision-making authority or
influenced the exercise of decision-making authority;
(4) the nature and extent of the defendant’s participation in the commission of the
criminal activity, including the acts the defendant performed and the
responsibility and discretion the defendant had in performing those acts;
(5) the degree to which the defendant stood to benefit from the criminal activity
The Ninth Circuit has found that for such an analysis, “the relevant comparison in
determining whether a four-level adjustment in offense level is appropriate is to the conduct of co-
participants in the case at hand.” United States v. Petti, 973 F.2d 1441, 1447 (9th Cir. 1992). This
comparison must be further constrained to the convicted offense. More clearly,
"the role adjustment guideline specifically requires the court to adjust only for the
defendant's role in the conviction offense, not in charged or uncharged collateral conduct." United
States v. Zweber, 913 F.2d 705, 709 (9th Cir. 1990). For example, “a Chapter Three adjustment "is
permissible in a money laundering case—but only when the [adjustment] relates to
the money laundering itself rather than to the underlying offense (the offense that generated
the money that the defendant laundered)." United States v. Salgado, 745 F.3d 1135, 1139 (11th Cir.
- 10 -
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1037 Filed 10/07/21 Page 10 of 14 Page ID
#:17159
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
2014) quoting United States v. Rushton, 738 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1 cmt.
n.2(C), Keck, Byors, and Anderson).
Thus, here—notwithstanding the number of defendants involved in the overarching bank
and wire fraud—the focus should largely be on Hayrapetyan’s actions compared to Grigoryan’s
actions in the conspiracy to money launder.
The PSR succinctly summarizes Hayrapetyan’s conduct over the course of the conspiracy,
as originally outlined in the factual basis of the defendant’s plea agreement. The language of both
documents clearly paint Hayrapetyan as subordinate to Grigoryan. In large part, Hayrapetyan’s
actions are described as the product of Grigroyan’s direction and instruction. For example, both the
Government and the PSR acknowledge that “Grigoryan directed Hayrapetyan to open an account
for Sabala Construction.” (PSR, pg. 8) Further, “Hayrapetyan opened [two other] accounts at
Grigoryans’ direction,” and provided the money he withdrew “to Girgoryan’s associate” who then
gave the money to Grigoryan. (PSR, pg. 9) Hayrapetyan was allowed to keep 5% of the
withdrawals, whereas the remaining 95% went to Grigoryan. Id. In fact, the impetus to the entire
conspiracy was borne in 2019 when “Grigoryan offered Hayrapetyan a partnership in a large
construction company named Sabala Construction.” (PSR, pg. 8). It was not until April 2020, that
Hayrapetyan knew or at a minimum was aware of the high probability the accounts he had opened
for Grigoryan were being used to funnel the proceeds of unlawful activity into cash. Id. While this
certainly does not absolve Hayrapetyan of criminal liability, it does go to establishing his minor
role. Hayrapetyan neither understood the full scope, or structure, of the criminal activity, nor did he
participate in the planning or organizing of the criminal activity, as evidenced by the fact he was
unaware of the schemes unlawful underpinning until April 2020. Hayrapetyan’s knowledge and
- 11 -
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1037 Filed 10/07/21 Page 11 of 14 Page ID
#:17160
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
participation was limited to the orders he was given by Grigoryan. He exercised no decision making
control, nor did he have the discretion to act independently. Finally, while Hayrapetyan did benefit
from the scheme, the disparity between his portion and Grigoryan’s portion is so profound that no
reasonable person would suggest that Hayrapetyan stood to benefit in the same way Grigoryan did.
Viewed in totality, it is abundantly clear that Hayrapetyan was used by Grigoryan to facilitate a
money laundering scheme, such that Hayrapetyan was a minor participant entirely controlled by
Grigoryan’s commands. To put it simply, “Hayrapetyan was recruited to participate in the offense
and [was] managed by Grigoryan,” [PSR pg. 12].
The Government urges this Court to view Mr. Hayrapetyan’s role in this conspiracy as
integral. [ECF 967] In part, they emphasis that Mr. Hayrapetyan’s professional degree and military
experience should dismiss the assertion that he was as “unsophisticated new arrival swindled into
illegal conduct.” Id. To be clear, that is not what the defense is suggesting. A minor role
departure—and more broadly, a determination of Mr. Hayrapetyan’s conduct in the abstract—is not
a battle of Mr. Hayrapetyan against himself and his pedigree. While this may be relevant in
generally characterizing the defendant, the minor role departure is predicated entirely on an analysis
between Mr. Hayrapetyan and his co-defendants. Accordingly, as explained above, we respectfully
believe that a two point departure is warranted for Hayrapetyan’s minor role.
D. Departures Based on Defendant’s Military Service
U.S.S.G. § 5H1.11 does provide that “military service may be relevant in determining
whether a departure is warranted,” when sentencing. Arman Hayrapetyan served in the Armenian
Army from 2003-2018 during which time he completed four tours in Afghanistan: Kunduz, Kabul,
and Mazar-i-Sharif twice. Mr. Hayrapetyan also served in the NATO forces where he received
- 12 -
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1037 Filed 10/07/21 Page 12 of 14 Page ID
#:17161
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
several medals and certificates. [PSR, pg. 15] [Exhibit A]. While the guidelines do not prescribe
what degree of military service is sufficient to warrant a departure, Mr. Hayrapetyan’s unblemished
service to both the Armenian military and to NATO should certainly be considered when
determining whether Mr. Hayrapetyan needs to be committed to the custody of the BOP.
4. THE NEED FOR THE SENTENCE IMPOSED 18 U.S.C. §3553(A)
As a general rule, “the overarching statutory charge for a district court is to "impose a
sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary" to reflect the seriousness of
the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment; to afford adequate
deterrence; to protect the public; and to provide the defendant with needed educational or
vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and (a)(2).”
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (quoting § 3553(a) and (a)(2)).
To that end, it is worth revisiting the series of events the led up to Hayrapetyan’s final plea.
Shortly after learning of the allegations made against him in the Government’s first superseding
indictment, Arman Hayrapetyan willingly surrendered to the US Marshall’s Office. He was then in
the custody of the BOP from March 25th, 2021 to June 4th, 2021. From the onset of these
proceedings, Hayrapetyan has been earnest in his desire to speak with the Government regarding the
charges lodged against him. Based upon the indictment, accompanying discovery, and the final plea
agreement it is fair to say that Hayrapetyan was neither the architect of this intricate scheme, nor its
primary beneficiary. Notwithstanding his limited involvement, the prospect of detention and
deportation, Hayrapetyan has been steadfast in his acceptance of responsibility. In fact, Mr.
Hayrapetyan was the first defendant to meet and speak with the Government. The resulting plea
agreement—filed publically—included a factual basis which outlined, in detail, the scheme
- 13 -
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1037 Filed 10/07/21 Page 13 of 14 Page ID
#:17162
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
Grigoryan had essentially orchestrated. This plea agreement not only attested to Hayrapetyan’s
individual actions, but also his knowledge of his co-defendants participation in said fraud. Soon
after the filing of this version of the plea agreement, many co-defendant otherwise situated to
proceed with trial, chose to plea.
Further, while others have chosen to evade justice, Mr. Hayrapetyan continues to live a
modest life within the limits of his supervision. Since his self-surrender Mr. Hayrapetyan has
complied with the requirements imposed by both the Government and Pre-Trial Services. And
while Hayrapetyan is not an “unsophisticated new arrival,” he is also not a criminal mastermind. To
this day, Hayrapetyan speaks little to no English, does not own a computer, and requires assistance
navigating his smart phone. Accordingly, time served fairly captures the totality of the
circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s conduct.
5. CONCLUSION
In light of all of the factors set forth in this sentencing memorandum, Defendant Arman
Hayrapetyan respectfully requests that the Court sentence the Defendant to time served, and if the
Defendant is sentenced to any additional time it be done as home detention, as well as a term of one
year supervised release.
Date: October 7th, 2021
TAHMAZIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
By: /s/ Jilbert Tahmazian__________
Jilbert Tahmazian, Esq. [SBN 143574]
Counsel for Defendant,
Arman Hayrapetyan
- 14 -
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1037 Filed 10/07/21 Page 14 of 14 Page ID
#:17163File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.1037.0.pdf
- Size
- 145,385 bytes
- SHA-256
- c5f4faecba5c6d3c987851f3e0cf9043d4ee050c092128c88fd033a23bc80d5f
- Original
- PACER (login required)