Proposed Order — USA v. Ayvazyan et al. (Dkt. 94-1, C.D. Cal.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW · Doc. 94-1 · 2020-12-17 · Docket on CourtListener

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 
NICOLA T. HANNA 
United States Attorney 
BRANDON D. FOX 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
JULIAN L. ANDRÉ (Cal. Bar No. 251120) 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Major Frauds Section 
1100 United States Courthouse 
312 North Spring Street 
Los Angeles, California 90012 
Telephone: (213) 894-6683 
Facsimile: (213) 894-6269 
E-mail: 
Julian.L.Andre@usdoj.gov 
 
DANIEL A. 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) 302-0539 
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, 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
No. CR 20-579-SVW 
 
[PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING  
TRIAL DATE AND FINDINGS REGARDING 
EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS PURSUANT 
TO SPEEDY TRIAL ACT  
 
[PROPOSED] TRIAL DATE: 05-04-21 
 
 
  
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94-1     Filed 12/17/20     Page 1 of 8   Page ID
#:539

 
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 
Having considered the United States of America’s Ex Parte 
Application for: (1) Continuance of the Trial Date; and (2) Findings 
of Excludable Delay Pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, as well as the 
Central District of California’s General Orders Nos. 20-02, 20-03, 
20-09, and 20-12, and Chief Judge Orders Nos. 20-042, 20-044, 20-
097, and 20-179, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby FINDS AS 
FOLLOWS: 
1. 
The Indictment in this case was filed on November 17, 
2020.  Defendants RICHARD AYVAZYAN (“R. AYVAZYAN”) and MARIETTA 
TERABELIAN first appeared before a judicial officer of the court in 
which the charges in this case were pending on December 4, 2020.    
The Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161, 3174, originally required 
that the trial as to defendants R. AYVAZYAN and TERABELIAN commence 
on or before June 2, 2021.  Defendants ARTUR AYVAZYAN and TAMARA 
DADYAN first appeared before a judicial officer of the court in 
which the charges in this case were pending on November 5, 2020.    
The Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161, 3174, originally required 
that the trial as to defendants A. AYVAZYAN and DADYAN commence on 
or before May 16, 2021.   
2. 
On December 3 and 4, 2020, the Court set a trial date of 
January 12, 2021. 
3. 
Defendants R. AYVAZYAN, TERABELIAN, A. AYVAZYAN, and 
DADYAN are all released on bond pending trial.  The government 
estimate that its case-in-chief in this matter will last 
approximately five to seven days.  All four defendants are joined 
for trial and a severance has not been granted. 
4. 
Defendants R. AYVAZYAN, TERABELIAN, A. AYVAYZAN, and 
DADYAN are charged with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (conspiracy 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94-1     Filed 12/17/20     Page 2 of 8   Page ID
#:540

 
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 
to commit wire and bank fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud); and 
18 U.S.C. § 1344(2) (bank fraud).  (CR 32.)  Defendant R. AYVAZYAN 
is also charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) 
(aggravated identity theft).  The government has produced discovery 
to the defense, including approximately 3,834 pages of documents, 
reports, and photographs, and is in the process of producing 
additional written materials to defendants.  The government has also 
made physical evidence seized during the execution of 11 search 
warrants on November 5, 2020, available for the defense to inspect 
and copy, and is in the process of providing defendants with copies 
of any accessible digital devices that were seized.  
5. 
On March 13, 2020, following the President’s declaration 
of a national emergency in response to COVID-19, the Court entered a 
General Order suspending jury selection and jury trials.  C.D. Cal. 
General Order No. 20-02, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Order 
Concerning Jury Trials and Other Proceedings (Mar. 13, 2020).  That 
suspension remains in place until a “date to be determined.”  C.D. 
Cal. General Order No. 20-09, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, 
Further Order Concerning Jury Trials and Other Proceedings (Aug. 6, 
2020); see also C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-179, In 
Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Activation of Continuity of 
Operations Plan, at 3 (Dec. 7, 2020) (“Jury trials remain 
suspended.”).  
6. 
Also on March 13, 2020, the Court imposed health- and 
travel-related limitations on access to Court facilities.  C.D. Cal. 
General Order No. 20-03, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Order 
Concerning Access to Court Facilities (Mar. 13, 2020).  On March 19, 
2020, by Order of the Chief Judge, the Court instituted its 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94-1     Filed 12/17/20     Page 3 of 8   Page ID
#:541

 
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 
Continuity of Operations Plan (“COOP”), closing all Central District 
of California courthouses to the public (except for hearings on 
criminal duty matters) and taking other emergency actions.  C.D. 
Cal. Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-042 (Mar. 19, 2020).  On March 
29 and 31, recognizing COVID-19’s continued spread in the community, 
the Court took further action: implementing video-teleconference and 
telephonic hearings and suspending all grand-jury proceedings.  C.D. 
Cal. Orders of the Chief Judge Nos. 20-043 (Mar. 29, 2020) and 20-
044 (Mar. 31, 2020).   
7. 
On August 6 and September 14, 2020, the Court slightly 
relaxed its restrictions to permit in-person criminal hearings for 
defendants who do not consent to remote appearance and to allow up 
to 10 members of the public to attend.  General Order No. 20-09, at 
2-3; General Order No. 20-12, at 2 (Sept. 14, 2020).  However, on 
December 7, 2020, following “an unprecedented surge of COVID-19 
cases, hospitalizations, and test positivity rates in the Central 
District,” the Court reinstituted its COOP Plan.  Order of the Chief 
Judge No. 20-179, at 1-2.  Pursuant to the COOP Plan, from December 
9, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. through and including January 8, 2021, all 
grand jury proceedings are suspended and court facilities are once 
again closed to the public except for hearings on certain criminal 
duty matters.  Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-179, at 2-3.   
8. 
These 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.    
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94-1     Filed 12/17/20     Page 4 of 8   Page ID
#:542

 
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 
9. 
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 “under the emergency declarations of national, state, and local 
governments, as well as recommendations from the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention to convene groups of no more than 10 people, 
the Court is unable to obtain an adequate spectrum of . . . grand 
jurors.”  Id. at 1141. 
10. 
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. 
11. 
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 restricts business and social activities, including by 
suspending outdoor restaurant operations, in California regions for 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94-1     Filed 12/17/20     Page 5 of 8   Page ID
#:543

 
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 
which ICU bed capacity is less than 15%.  As the Chief Judge’s 
December 7, 2020, Order reactivating the COOP Plan recognizes, ICU 
availability in the Southern California region, which includes the 
entire Central District of California, 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. 
12. 
Given the grave public-health concerns discussed in the 
Court’s General Orders and the Chief Judge’s Orders, and given the 
facts set forth in the government’s Ex Parte Application (which the 
Court incorporates fully by reference), the ends of justice served 
by the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and 
defendant in a speedy trial. 
13. 
Failure to grant the continuance would likely make a 
continuation of the proceeding impossible or result in a miscarriage 
of justice.   
14. 
Failure to continue this case would also likely put 
parties, witnesses, jurors, counsel, and court personnel at 
unnecessary risk. 
15. 
Due to the restrictions imposed by current public-health 
concerns -- particularly given the complexity of this case -- it is 
also unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial 
proceedings or for the trial itself within the Speedy Trial Act time 
limits.  Thus, denial of a continuance is likely to deny all counsel 
reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into 
account the exercise of due diligence. 
16. 
The continuance is not based on congestion of the Court’s 
calendar, lack of diligent preparation on the part of the attorneys 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94-1     Filed 12/17/20     Page 6 of 8   Page ID
#:544

 
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 
for the government or the defense, or failure on the part of the 
attorneys for the government to obtain available witnesses.  
Accordingly, the Court finds that there are facts that support 
a continuance of the trial date in this matter, and there is good 
cause for a finding of excludable time pursuant to the Speedy Trial 
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. 
THEREFORE, FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN: 
1. 
The trial in this matter is continued from January 12, 
2021, to May 4, 2021.  
2. 
The time period of November 18, 2021, to May 4, 2021, 
inclusive, is excluded in computing the time within which the trial 
must commence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(i), 
and (h)(7)(B)(iv).   
3. 
Defendants  shall appear in Courtroom 10A of the Federal 
Courthouse, 350 West 1st Street, Los Angeles, California on May 4, 
2021, at 9:00 a.m. 
4. 
Nothing in this Order shall 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.  Moreover, the same provisions and/or other provisions of 
the Speedy Trial Act may in the future authorize the exclusion of 
additional time periods from the period within which trial must 
commence. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DATE 
 
HONORABLE STEPHEN V. WILSON 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94-1     Filed 12/17/20     Page 7 of 8   Page ID
#:545

 
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 
 
Presented by: 
     /s/ 
JULIAN L. ANDRÉ 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94-1     Filed 12/17/20     Page 8 of 8   Page ID
#:546

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.94.1.pdf

Size

51,886 bytes

SHA-256

b1527bc63cba017af62747e4fd5153ab3df343e1da5d36cb5c87276835495c99

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.94.1.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)