First Request to Clarify as to Judgment and Commitment — USA v. Ayvazyan et al. (Dkt. 1098, C.D. Cal.)

Summary

Defendant's Unopposed Request for Clarification or Correction of the Judgment and Commitment/Probation Order, filed by Arman Hayrapetyan through attorney Jilbert Tahmazian in Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW, Central District of California. It states that the Order requires participation in a home detention program but does not specify the type of monitoring, and that at sentencing the Court imposed ten months of probation with seven and a half months of home confinement to be monitored through GPS monitoring as opposed to electronic monitoring. The request states that the Government does not object, takes no position on the language of the judgment, and defers to the Court and Probation.

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

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Ca

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:17903

JILBERT TAHMAZIAN; 143574
TAHMAZIAN LAW FIRM P.C.
1518 West Glenoaks Blvd.,
Glendale, CA 91201

Telephone: (818) 242-8201

Facsimile: (818) 242-8246
Attorney for Defendant,
ARMAN HAYRAPETYAN
UNITED STATES DISCTRICT COURT
CENTERAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO.: CR 20-579(A)-SV W-6
DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED REQUEST
vs FOR CLARIFICATION OR
‘ CORRECTION OF THE JUDGEMENT
ARMAN HAYRAPETYAN, AND COMMITMENT/PROBATION
ORDER
DEFENDANT.

Defendant Arman Hayrapetyan, by and through his attorney, Jilbert Tahmazian, hereby
requests that the Court clarify or correct the Judgement and Commitment/Probation Order [“Order”]
issued against Defendant Arman Hayrapetyan, chiefly with respect to the monitoring condition first
condition.' The Order currently requires that defendant participate in a home detention program, but
does not specify its preference with regard to the type of monitoring imposed. However, during

Defendant’s sentencing hearing the Court sentenced Defendant to ten months of probation with a

" [See Dkt. 1075] Page 1, term and condition | reads as follows: “The defendant shall participate for a period of seven
and a half months in a home detention program which may include electronic monitoring, GPS, Alcohol Continuing
Unit or automated identification system and shall observe all rules of such program, as directed by the Probation

Officer.”
-|-
Ca

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Se 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1098 Filed 10/29/21 Page 2of2 Page ID

#:17904

period of seven and a half months of home confinement to be monitored through GPS monitoring
as opposed to electronic monitoring. Accordingly, defendant respectfully requests clarification as

to the type of monitoring issued by this Court.

Defense Counsel caused an email to be sent to the Government seeking their position on this
request. The Government expressed that they do not object to defendant seeking clarification from
the Court as to its preference regarding the type of electronic monitoring imposed in connection
with the home confinement condition. They do not, however, take a position as to the language that
should be included in the judgment and defer to the Court and Probation as to what they believe is

appropriate.

Dated: October 28", 2021

BY:

JLo BERT TAHMAZIAN,
Attorney for Defendant


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.1098.0.pdf

Size

103,167 bytes

SHA-256

2e3c27f837392d7a33ef6bafcf6da93c77ddba89a46c860a8d8260f45da17e34

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.1098.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)