Court filing
Minute (in Chambers) Order Denying Motion to Modify Conditions of Pretrial Release — USA v. Ayvazyan et al. (Dkt. 127, C.D. Cal.)
Filed February 18, 2021 in USA v. Ayvazyan et al.; one of 233 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2021-02-18 |
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW · Doc. 127 · 2021-02-18 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CRIMINAL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.
CR20-00579-SVW-3
Date
February 17, 2021
Title
U.S.A. v. Artur Ayvazyan
CRIMINAL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 1
Present: The Honorable
Alka Sagar, United States Magistrate Judge
Alma Felix
None
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
Attorneys Present for Defendant:
N/A
N/A
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO MODIFY
CONDITIONS OF PRETRIAL RELEASE
On February 12, 2021, Defendant Artur Ayvazyan filed a motion seeking
modification of certain conditions of pretrial release. (Dkt. No. 117). On February
16, 2021, the government filed an opposition, (Dkt. No. 119). The matter has been
referred to the undersigned for determination. (Dkt. No. 122). Having carefully
considered the above-referenced filings, the Court DENIES the motion.
The Court continues to believe that home detention and travel restrictions
are necessary to assure Defendant’s appearance at trial and the safety of the
community from economic danger, given the nature of the pending charges. See
Opposition at 4-5. As the government points out, these conditions permit
Defendant a reasonable opportunity to seek and maintain employment with pre-
approval from Pretrial Services. To the extent Defendant encounters unforeseen
delays in completing deliveries on any given date, Defendant is able to provide
notice to, and obtain approval from, Pretrial Services to return home at a later
time. Id. at 3. If Defendant finds these requirements cumbersome, he may choose
to use an electronic ankle bracelet as an alternative to the Voice ID form of
electronic monitoring.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1
The parties may submit a stipulation to replace the Voice ID form of electronic monitoring requirement with the
electronic bracelet.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 127 Filed 02/18/21 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:847File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.127.0.pdf
- Size
- 106,725 bytes
- SHA-256
- 4ed190e06e07a4ba64808ea3f8493d516ff152d952c7bddd7612e81c035b5a8b
- Original
- PACER (login required)