Opposition to Second Notice of Motion and Motion — USA v. Ayvazyan et al. (Dkt. 1010, C.D. Cal.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW · Doc. 1010 · 2021-09-29 · 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
TRACY L. WILKISON 
Acting United States Attorney 
SCOTT M. GARRINGER 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
SCOTT PAETTY (Cal. Bar No. 274719) 
CATHERINE AHN (Cal. Bar No. 248286) 
BRIAN FAERSTEIN (Cal. Bar No. 274850) 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
Major Frauds/Environmental and Community Safety Crimes Sections 
1100/1300 United States Courthouse 
312 North Spring Street 
Los Angeles, California 90012 
Telephone: (213) 894-6527/2424/3819 
Facsimile: (213) 894-6269/0141 
E-mail: 
Scott.Paetty@usdoj.gov;  
 
Catherine.S.Ahn@usdoj.gov; 
 
Brian.Faerstein@usdoj.gov 
 
JOSEPH BEEMSTERBOER 
Acting Chief, Fraud Section 
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) 320-0539 
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 
 
RICHARD AYVAZYAN, 
aka “Richard Avazian” and 
    “Iuliia Zhadko,” 
MARIETTA TERABELIAN, 
  aka “Marietta Abelian” and     
      “Viktoria Kauichko,” 
ARTUR AYVAZYAN, 
aka “Arthur Ayvazyan,” and 
TAMARA DADYAN, 
MANUK GRIGORYAN, 
  aka “Mike Grigoryan,” and 
      “Anton Kudiumov,” 
ARMAN HAYRAPETYAN, 
EDVARD PARONYAN, 
aka “Edvard Paronian” and 
    “Edward Paronyan,” and 
 
 
 
No. CR 20-579(A)-SVW-3 
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO 
DEFENDANT ARTUR AYVAZYAN’S MOTION 
TO CONTINUE SENTENCING FROM 
OCTOBER 18, 2021, TO NOVEMBER 15, 
2021 (ECF 997) 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1010     Filed 09/29/21     Page 1 of 7   Page ID
#:16937

 
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
VAHE DADYAN, 
 
Defendants. 
 
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel 
of record, the Acting United States Attorney for the Central District 
of California, Assistant United States Attorneys Scott Paetty, 
Catherine S. Ahn, and Brian Faerstein, and Department of Justice 
Trial Attorney Christopher Fenton, hereby files its opposition to 
defendant Artur Ayvazyan’s Motion to Continue Sentencing from October 
18, 2021, to November 15, 2021 (ECF 997).  This opposition is based 
upon the attached memorandum of points and authorities, the files and 
records in this case, and such further evidence and argument as the 
Court may permit. 
Dated: September 29, 2021 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
TRACY L. WILKISON 
Acting United States Attorney 
 
SCOTT M. GARRINGER 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
 
 
      /s/ 
 
SCOTT PAETTY 
CATHERINE AHN 
BRIAN FAERSTEIN 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
CHRISTOPHER FENTON 
Department of Justice Trial Attorney 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1010     Filed 09/29/21     Page 2 of 7   Page ID
#:16938

 
 
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
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 
Defendant Artur Ayvazyan has filed his second motion for a 
continuance (which would be the third continuance overall) of his 
sentencing date, originally scheduled for September 13, 2021.1  The 
government informed defendant it would not oppose a modest additional 
continuance, from October 18 to November 1, 2021, in recognition that 
the presentence investigation report (“PSR”) was disclosed to the 
parties ten days later than required under the governing rules.  But 
defendant seeks two additional weeks beyond that date, relying on 
vague and conclusory assertions about the need for more time and 
comparisons to time allotted to defendants who are not similarly 
situated.  The Court should deny defendant’s second motion for a 
continuance for the following reasons. 
First, the government advised defendant that it would agree to a 
continuance of sentencing to November 1, 2021, in light of the late 
disclosure of the PSR on September 23, 2021.2  (ECF 994.)  Defendant 
would have 39 days following disclosure of the PSR before sentencing, 
more than the minimum amount of time required.  Defendant also would 
have more than one month before defendant’s sentencing position would 
be due on October 25, 2021.  Moreover, regardless of whether 
 
1 Prior to defendant’s first motion to continue on August 26, 
2021, the Court continued the sentencing date of defendant and his 
codefendants Richard Ayvazyan (“R. Ayvazyan”), Marietta Terabelian 
(“Terabelian”), and Vahe Dadyan from September 13 to October 4, 2021, 
in response to codefendants R. Ayvazyan’s and Terabelian’s oral 
request during the post-trial Kastigar hearing in this case on July 
29, 2021.  (ECF 821.) 
2 The government previously agreed not to oppose a two-week 
continuance of sentencing requested by defendant, from October 4 to 
October 18, 2021.  (ECF 884.)  As explained further below, the 
government agreed not to contest that request prior to codefendants 
R. Ayvazyan and Terabelian absconding from supervision on August 29, 
2021. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1010     Filed 09/29/21     Page 3 of 7   Page ID
#:16939

 
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
defendant is sentenced on November 1 or November 15, his and the 
government’s objections to the PSR will be due on October 7, which is 
two weeks after disclosure of the PSR.  See Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 
32(f)(1) (“Within 14 days after receiving the presentence report, the 
parties must state in writing any objections, including objections to 
material information, sentencing guideline ranges, and policy 
statements contained in or omitted from the report.”); L. Cr. R. 32-
3.2 (“Counsel must observe strictly the requirements of [Fed. R. 
Crim. P.] 32(f) regarding objections to presentence reports.”).  A 
continuance of sentencing to November 1, 2021, will provide defendant 
more than the minimum time required for consideration of the PSR 
under the governing rules and allow the parties to timely comply with 
all of the filing deadlines in advance of sentencing. 
Second, defendant claims that he requires “more than the minimum 
time frame” in order “to provide effective assistance of counsel” but 
does not provide any factual basis for that contention.  (ECF 997 at 
2-3.)  Putting aside that defendant would be afforded four more days 
than is required with a November 1 sentencing date, defendant’s claim 
is based solely on the barebones assertion that this is “a certified 
complex case with multiple defendants, complicated alleged 
connections between defendants, and even more complicated sources of 
loss amounts.”  (Id. at 2.)  But none of the facts or circumstances 
of this case are new to defendant or his counsel.   
Counsel have represented defendant since December 8, 2020 (ECF 
66, 67), shortly after his arrest a little over one month earlier.  
Counsel filed or joined numerous pretrial motions on behalf of 
defendant, prepared for and represented defendant during a two-week 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1010     Filed 09/29/21     Page 4 of 7   Page ID
#:16940

 
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
trial, including preparing defendant to testify at trial, and 
submitted post-trial motions for judgment of acquittal or a new 
trial.  Counsel also has had access to discovery as the government 
has timely made it available for the duration of the case, including 
the trial exhibits that were marked and admitted during trial in June 
2021.  Defendant’s mere allusions to “effective assistance of 
counsel” and the case being “complicated” ignores the significant 
amount of time counsel has already had to prepare for all aspects of 
this case.  Such conclusory assertions also do not provide any 
specific basis as to how and why defendant will be prejudiced by a 
November 1 sentencing date, particularly considering sentencing was 
initially scheduled to proceed on September 13.  (ECF 651.) 
Third, defendant points to the amount of time counsel to two 
other codefendants, Richard Ayvazyan (“R. Ayvazyan”) and Edvard 
Paronyan (“Paronyan”), may have to review their respective PSRs prior 
to sentencing.  (ECF at 3.)  Defendant’s attempt to draw comparisons 
to his codefendants is irrelevant to the circumstances of his case or 
the time defendant reasonably needs to prepare for sentencing, as 
explained above.   
Moreover, these other codefendants are differently situated.  
The Court recently continued codefendant R. Ayvazyan’s sentencing to 
November 15 over the government’s objection due to R. Ayvazyan’s 
flight from supervision and his counsel’s stated need for more time 
because they did not have the ability to meet with and discuss 
sentencing matters or the PSR with their client.  Here, defendant and 
his counsel will presumably have full access to each other and the 
PSR as they continue to prepare for sentencing.  As for codefendant 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1010     Filed 09/29/21     Page 5 of 7   Page ID
#:16941

 
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
Paronyan, who pleaded guilty prior to trial, his sentencing was 
originally scheduled for August 30 but was continued to September 27, 
following disclosure of his PSR the same day the government had 
already agreed not to oppose his initial request for a continuance.  
(ECF 524, 803, 806-1 at ¶ 5, 859.)  Whatever additional time counsel 
to codefendant Paronyan may have had with the PSR prior to sentencing 
is irrelevant to defense counsel’s effective preparation here.  This 
is particularly the case considering defendant and his counsel 
prepared for and put on a full defense at a hotly-contested trial for 
which codefendant Paronyan and his counsel were not present.3 
Finally, the government has a heightened concern about the risks 
of non-appearance in this case in light of defendant’s brother’s and 
sister-in-law’s flight from supervision on August 29, 2021.  The 
government agreed not to contest defendant’s initial request for a 
two-week continuance on August 26, several days before his close 
family members absconded.  The government agrees not to contest a 
further continuance here from October 18 to November 1, as such 
additional time is required under the Federal Rules of Criminal 
Procedure in light of the disclosure of the PSR on September 23.  But 
the government believes that sentencing should proceed no later than 
is required under the governing rules given recent events in this 
case. 
 
3  Notably, between the government’s initial agreement not to 
contest a two-week request for continuance (from October 1 to October 
18) and its agreement here not to contest defendant’s additional 
request for two weeks, the government will be agreeing to the same 
aggregate four-week continuance for defendant that it agreed to with 
respect to codefendant Paronyan. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1010     Filed 09/29/21     Page 6 of 7   Page ID
#:16942

 
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
In sum, nothing defendant asserts in his second motion to 
continue removes this case from the heartland of fraud cases that 
proceed on the sentencing schedule governed by the Federal Rules of 
Criminal Procedure.  The Court should deny defendant’s request to 
continue sentencing to November 15, and instead should reschedule 
sentencing for November 1, 2021, within the timeframe contemplated 
and required by the governing rules.  
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1010     Filed 09/29/21     Page 7 of 7   Page ID
#:16943

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.1010.0.pdf

Size

95,163 bytes

SHA-256

06256b5066361c4ca170542e8d8d7fc1667a40e5cedffb2db31d1d7a50b0565b

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.1010.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)