MEMORANDUM of USCA filed as to MOVANT GOHAR ABELIAN, CCA #23-1266.… — USA v. Ayvazyan et al (Dkt. 1469)

Summary

A Memorandum of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Document 1469 filed 09/13/24, in No. 23-1266, United States of America v. Gohar Abelian, Movant - Appellant, on appeal from D.C. No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW-8 in the Central District of California, before Circuit Judges R. Nelson, Miller, and Desai. The memorandum states that Gohar Abelian served as surety on a $100,000 bond for her sister, Marietta Terabelian, who absconded to Montenegro after her conviction, and that the district court ordered the bond forfeited and denied her motion to set it aside. It reviews the denial for abuse of discretion, applies a six-factor test, and rejects her arguments on those factors. The panel states, we affirm.

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 
 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
 
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
                    Plaintiff - Appellee, 
  v. 
GOHAR ABELIAN, 
                    Movant - Appellant. 
No. 23-1266 
D.C. No. 
2:20-cr-00579-SVW-8 
 
MEMORANDUM* 
 
Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Central District of California 
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding 
 
Submitted September 11, 2024** 
Pasadena, California 
 
Before: R. NELSON, MILLER, and DESAI, Circuit Judges. 
 
 
Gohar Abelian served as surety on a $100,000 bond to secure the appearance 
of her sister, Marietta Terabelian, who was charged with fraudulently obtaining 
COVID-19 relief funds. When Terabelian absconded to Montenegro after her 
 
* 
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 
 
** 
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 
 
FILED 
 
SEP 13 2024 
 
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK 
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1469     Filed 09/13/24     Page 1 of 5   Page ID
#:21225

 
2  
23-1266 
conviction, the district court ordered the bond forfeited. The court denied Abelian’s 
motion to set aside the bond forfeiture, and she now appeals. We review a “denial 
of a motion for relief from bond forfeiture for abuse of discretion.” United States v. 
Nguyen, 279 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2002). We have jurisdiction under 28 
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.  
A “court must declare the bail forfeited if a condition of the bond is 
breached.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 46(f)(1). In other words, “forfeiture is . . . mandatory.” 
Nguyen, 279 F.3d at 1115. But when “it appears that justice does not require bail 
forfeiture,” a court may set it aside “in whole or in part.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 46(f)(2). 
We have set out a non-exhaustive list of six factors to guide courts in considering 
when that exception may apply: “1) the defendant’s willfulness in breaching a 
release condition; 2) the sureties’ participation in apprehending the defendant; 3) 
the cost, inconvenience, and prejudice suffered by the government; 4) mitigating 
factors; 5) whether the surety is a professional or a member of the family or a 
friend, and 6) the appropriateness of the amount of the bond.” Nguyen, 279 F.3d at 
1115–16 (quoting United States v. Amwest Surety Ins., 54 F.3d 601, 603 (9th Cir. 
1995)). The district court correctly articulated those factors, and it did not abuse its 
discretion in applying them. 
 1. Abelian claims that she “lacked involvement in and control” over 
Terabelian’s actions. But she does not dispute that Terabelian’s conduct was 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1469     Filed 09/13/24     Page 2 of 5   Page ID
#:21226

 
3  
23-1266 
willful, and the district court correctly concluded that Abelian’s noninvolvement is 
irrelevant. See United States v. Frias-Ramirez, 670 F.2d 849, 853 (9th Cir. 1982) 
(“The district court could have assumed that defendant’s breach was voluntary in 
the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary.”).  
2. As surety, Abelian was responsible for ensuring that Terabelian appeared 
when required by the district court. See United States v. Vera-Estrada, 577 F.2d 
598, 600 (9th Cir. 1978). Although Abelian did not assist Terabelian’s flight to 
Montenegro, she did not assist the government in apprehending her. The district 
court did not err in concluding that the second factor therefore weighs in the 
government’s favor or is at least neutral. 
3. Abelian does not appear to dispute that the government’s efforts to locate, 
apprehend, and extradite Terabelian after her flight to Montenegro were 
considerable. See United States v. Abernathy, 757 F.2d 1012, 1015–16 (9th Cir. 
1985) (per curiam). She instead argues that the district court “disproportionately 
focused on” the “costs incurred by the government” in apprehending Terabelian. 
But the district court did not indicate that it weighed this factor more heavily than 
any other factor.  
4. Abelian insists that the district court overlooked “her lack of prior 
experience as a surety, the emotional and financial strain she experienced due to 
[Terabelian’s] flight, and her new responsibilities as a guardian for [Terabelian’s] 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1469     Filed 09/13/24     Page 3 of 5   Page ID
#:21227

 
4  
23-1266 
minor children.” But the district court did consider those potential factors. The 
court expressed skepticism about Abelian’s purported lack of sophistication, noting 
that she is an attorney who, as described on her website, “handles criminal law 
matters.” The court also acknowledged her considerable burdens but correctly 
observed that she “cannot avoid forfeiture simply by claiming she now needs the 
money.” See United States v. Noriega-Sarabia, 116 F.3d 417, 420 (9th Cir. 1997) 
(holding that a surety’s failure to have a net worth as high as the bond did not 
invalidate the bond). 
5. Abelian next contends that the district court “inadequately considered 
[her] status as a non-professional surety, specifically her role as a family member.” 
But the district court found that the factor did indeed weigh in Abelian’s favor, 
while also correctly acknowledging that it “is by no means dispositive.”   
6. Abelian claims that “[t]he district court failed to critically assess whether 
the bond amount was appropriate” because bond forfeiture is “a mechanism to 
offset government costs.” That misstates the law. A bond is “like liquidated 
damages in that it must be reasonable when set,” and “it need not necessarily 
approximate the actual costs of breach.” Nguyen, 279 F.3d at 1117. Here, Abelian 
does not explain why the bond amount was unreasonable at the time it was set. 
Thus, the district court was right to note that, because Terabelian was “charged 
with serious financial crimes . . . involving millions of government 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1469     Filed 09/13/24     Page 4 of 5   Page ID
#:21228

 
5  
23-1266 
dollars[,] . . . the amount of bond was clearly appropriate at the time of the arrest.”  
Finally, the government asks us to dismiss Richard Ayvazyan, Marietta 
Terabelian, Tamara Dadyan, Manuk Grigoryan, and Arman Hayrapetyan from this 
appeal, and Abelian does not object. Because those defendants have no interest in 
this appeal and have not participated in it, we dismiss them as parties. The clerk is 
directed to revise the docket to reflect that they are not parties to the appeal. 
The government’s motion for judicial notice (Dkt. No. 42) is denied as moot. 
See Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770, 777 n.3 (9th Cir. 
2017). 
AFFIRMED. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1469     Filed 09/13/24     Page 5 of 5   Page ID
#:21229

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.1469.0.pdf

Size

209,303 bytes

SHA-256

0ebc565c546f91622ddd7eff38ea6d89d8dac2ac79d702235239a065dcf13098

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.1469.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)