First Notice of Motion and Motion for Acquittal — USA v. Ayvazyan et al. (Dkt. 686, C.D. Cal.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW · Doc. 686 · 2021-07-12 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
 
 
Thomas A. Mesereau Jr., 
Mesereau Law Group P.C. 
10100 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 300 
Los Angeles, CA 90067 
310-651-9960 
mesereau@mesereaulaw.com 
 
Jennifer J. Wirsching 
Attorney at Law  
1935 Alpha Rd, Suite 216 
Glendale, CA 91208 
424-902-9280 
wirschinglaw@outlook.com 
 
 
Counsel for Artur Ayvazyan  
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 
 
   Plaintiff, 
 
 
 
v. 
 
ARTUR AYVAZYAN 
 
 
 
   Defendant. 
  
Case No. 20:CR-00579-SVW 
 
 
 
RULE 29 MOTION FOR 
JUDGEMENT OF ACQUITTAL 
 
  
 
 
 
Defendant, Artur Ayvazyan, renews his motion for judgment of acquittal 
on all counts pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 
First, he moves for acquittal on all counts for insufficient evidence on each 
element of each count. In addition, and without waiving that general motion, he 
moves for acquittal as follows. 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW   Document 686   Filed 07/12/21   Page 1 of 8   Page ID #:11113

2 
 
 
 
 
  
 
I. LEGAL STANDARD 
 
 
A defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal if the evidence produced 
against him is insufficient to sustain a conviction. To evaluate a motion under 
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, the Court “must determine whether, 
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the jury 
could reasonably find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United 
States v. Merriweather, 777 F.2d 503, 507 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting United States 
v. Hazeem, 679 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 848 (1982)); see 
also Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). 
“Although Jackson requires the reviewing court initially to construe all evidence 
in favor of the government, the evidence so construed may still be so supportive 
of innocence that no rational juror could conclude that the government proved its 
case beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1167 
(9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). “[E]vidence is insufficient to support a verdict where 
mere speculation, rather than reasonable inference, supports the government’s 
case.” Id. 
// 
// 
// 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW   Document 686   Filed 07/12/21   Page 2 of 8   Page ID #:11114

3 
 
 
 
 
II. ARGUMENT 
 
1. Insufficient Evidence was Presented at Trial for Conviction Beyond a 
 
Reasonable Doubt as to All Charges 
 
 
Artur Ayvazyan moved the Court at the close of the government’s case for 
judgement of acquittal on all counts pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 
Procedure 29. (TR 65 – 72, June 22, 2021 P.M.) Artur Ayvazyan renewed that 
motion at the close of all evidence. (TR 36, June 23, 2021 PM.) Artur Ayvazyan 
now moves for acquittal on all counts for insufficient evidence on each element 
of each count following conviction at trial, incorporating all prior arguments. It is 
clear by the lack of evidence as to Artur Ayvazyan that “mere speculation, rather 
that reasonable inference” were the grounds for conviction in this case. Id. In 
addition, and without waiving that general motion, he moves for acquittal as 
follows. 
 
2. Insufficient Evidence was Presented at Trial for Conviction on Count 
24 
 
 
Artur Ayvazyan was charged in Count 24 of the First Superseding 
Indictment with a violation of 18 USC §1028A – Aggravated Identity Theft. 
(Dkt. 154) Court’s Instruction No. 32 set forth the elements of the offense (in 
pertinent part) as [f]irst, the defendant knowingly transferred, possessed, or used 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW   Document 686   Filed 07/12/21   Page 3 of 8   Page ID #:11115

4 
 
 
 
without legal authority a means of identification of another person, namely, the 
following:” “[f]or Count Twenty-Four, the name and date of birth of Anna 
Dzukaeva[,]” “[s]econd, the defendant knew that the means of identification 
belonged to a real person[,]” and “[t]hird, the defendant did so during and in 
relation to a specific bank fraud or wire fraud offense charged in the indictment, 
namely, the following:” “For Count Twenty-Four, wire fraud, as charged in 
Count Twelve.” (Dkt. 609)(Emphasis added)  
 
a. The Evidence was Insufficient to Prove Knowing 
Possession Beyond a Reasonable Doubt 
 
 
To be properly convicted of Aggravated Identity Theft, the government 
must have submitted evidence that could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 
Artur Ayvazyan knowingly possessed the name and date of birth of Anna 
Dzukaeva. (Court’s Instruction No. 32, DKT. 609) The government failed to 
introduce any evidence that Artur Ayvazyan knew that he possessed the name 
and date of birth of Anna Dzukeava.  In contrast, Artur Ayvazyan testified under 
oath that he did not know that an image containing information about Anna 
Duzkaeva was on his phone.  
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW   Document 686   Filed 07/12/21   Page 4 of 8   Page ID #:11116

5 
 
 
 
Q Okay. Now, in this trial, it has come to the attention of everyone that 
some what appear to be synthetic ID's, fake ID's, driver's licenses, 
whatever, were found on your phone?  
A Right. 
Q Did you put those on your phone? 
A No, sir. I don't even know the whereabouts until I 
got charged and I went through the phone and I saw all 
that stuff and I erased it right away. 
Q Do you know who put that information on your phone? 
A Most likely my wife. 
Q You did not do it? 
A No, sir. 
Q Did you invent any of those fake ID's or 
manufacture them at any point? 
A No, sir.   
TR 104 – 105, June 23, 2021 A.M. 
 
It is clear from the record that the evidence against Artur Ayvazyan was 
insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly possessed 
Anna Dzukaeva’s name and date of birth. 
 
b. The Evidence was Insufficient to Prove Artur 
Ayvazyan Knew Anna Dzukaeva was a Real Person 
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW   Document 686   Filed 07/12/21   Page 5 of 8   Page ID #:11117

6 
 
 
 
 
  
The government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Artur 
Ayvazyan knew that Anna Dzukaeva was a real person. (Court’s Instruction No. 
32, DKT. 609), See also Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 555 US 1162 (2009) 
The government did not introduce any evidence that Artur Ayvazyan had any 
inkling that Anna Dzukaeva was a real person. 
 
In contrast, when asked under oath “do you know the name Anna 
Dzukaeva?” Artur Ayvazyan testified “A No, sir. Not until I was charged with 
her identify theft.” TR 115, 116 June 23, 2021 A.M. 
 
It is clear from the record that the evidence against Artur Ayvazyan was 
insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that Anna 
Dzukaeva was a real person.  
 
c. The Evidence was Insufficient to Prove Artur 
Ayvazyan Possessed Anna Dzukaeva’s Information 
in Relation to Count 12 Wire Fraud 
 
 
To be properly convicted of Aggravated Identity Theft, the government 
must have submitted evidence that could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 
Artur Ayvazyan knowingly possessed the name and date of birth of Anna 
Dzukaeva in relation to Count 12 -  Wire Fraud. (Court’s Instruction No. 32, 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW   Document 686   Filed 07/12/21   Page 6 of 8   Page ID #:11118

7 
 
 
 
DKT. 609) Count 12 alleged that Artur Ayvazyan transmitted or aided and 
abetted the submission of an application for PPP loan to Lender F in the name of 
A.D., sent by means of an interstate wire. (Dkt. 154)  
 
The government did not submit any evidence that Artur Ayvazyan 
transmitted, nor aided or abetted in the submission of a PPP loan in the name of 
Anna Dzukeava. In contrast, Artur Ayvazyan testified under oath that he did not 
even know the name of the business (Six Star Farms,) nor was he even aware of 
any loan in Anna Dzukaeva’s name. When asked under oath “do you know the 
name Anna Dzukaeva?” Artur Ayvazyan testified “A No, sir. Not until I was 
charged with her identify theft.”  
TR 115, 116 June 23, 2021 A.M. 
Q Okay. Ever hear of a place called Six Star Farms? 
A No, sir. 
 
TR 115, 116 June 23, 2021 A.M. 
 
 
III. 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 
The government failed to enter sufficient evidence at trial for a jury to find 
beyond a reasonable doubt that Artur Ayvazyan was guilty of any of the charges 
against him.  Therefore, Artur Ayvazyan renews his prior motion for judgement 
of acquittal on all counts for insufficient evidence on each element of each count. 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW   Document 686   Filed 07/12/21   Page 7 of 8   Page ID #:11119

8 
 
 
 
 
Dated: July 12, 2021  
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
  
 
/s/Jennifer J. Wirsching 
 
 
  
 
Jennifer J. Wirsching 
 
 
  
 
Attorney for Artur Ayvazyan 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW   Document 686   Filed 07/12/21   Page 8 of 8   Page ID #:11120

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.686.0.pdf

Size

124,718 bytes

SHA-256

637252d3b10c95ff0ff22ebf8a0eaadb7cee17ddd4a9517ae51cb0dba953baee

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.686.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com