OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Modify Conditions of Release 864 filed by… — USA v. Ayvazyan et al (Dkt. 865)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW · Doc. 865 · 2021-08-11 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

The government's opposition to defendant Edvard Paronyan's ex parte motion to modify conditions of pretrial release, filed August 11, 2021 as Doc. 865 in No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The memorandum states that Paronyan pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud, is scheduled to be sentenced on September 27, 2021, and has a Guidelines imprisonment range of 27-33 months. It says this is his fourth such motion and that he now asks the Court to terminate location monitoring by telephone and lift his curfew. The government argues that location monitoring remains necessary to assure his appearance at sentencing, disputes his account of nightly check-in notifications, and proposes monitoring by ankle bracelet as an alternative. The filing is 5 pages and cites a declaration of Christopher Fenton.

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

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 
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) 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 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
EDVARD PARONYAN, 
 
Defendant. 
No. CR 20-579-SVW-3 
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO 
DEFENDANT EDVARD PARONYAN’S EX 
PARTE MOTION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS 
OF PRETRIAL RELEASE; MEMORANDUM OF 
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; 
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER FENTON 
 
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel 
of record, the Acting United States Attorney for the Central District 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 865     Filed 08/11/21     Page 1 of 5   Page ID
#:15307

 
 
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
of California, Assistant United States Attorneys Scott Paetty, Brian 
Faerstein, and Catherine Ahn, and Department of Justice Trial 
Attorney Christopher Fenton, hereby submits its opposition to 
defendant Edvard Paronyan’s ex parte motion to modify the conditions 
of pretrial release. (ECF 864.)    
The government’s opposition is based on the attached memorandum 
of points and authorities, the attached declaration, the files and 
records in this case, and such additional evidence or argument as the 
Court may permit.   
 
Dated: August 11, 2021 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
TRACY L. WILKISON 
Acting United States Attorney 
 
SCOTT M. GARRINGER 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
 
 
      /s/ 
 
SCOTT PAETTY 
BRIAN R. FAERSTEIN 
CATHERINE AHN 
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 865     Filed 08/11/21     Page 2 of 5   Page ID
#:15308

 
 
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 Edvard Paronyan has pleaded guilty to one count of 
wire fraud in connection with his role in a scheme to steal over 
$400,000 in COVID-19 disaster relief loan proceeds intended for small 
business that needed the money to survive.  (ECF 524.)  The defendant 
is scheduled to be sentenced on September 27, 2021.  Based on the 
U.S. Probation Office’s calculated criminal history of III, his 
Guidelines imprisonment range is 27-33 months.  (ECF 803 ¶ 120.) 
 
This is the fourth ex parte motion to modify his conditions of 
pretrial release filed by the defendant.  (See ECF 387, 561, 662, 
864.)  The government has been amenable to work with the defendant 
and his counsel with respect to reasonable modifications specific to 
address the needs of the defendant’s family, so long as the defendant 
remained on location monitoring.  Most recently, the government 
agreed not to oppose the defendant’s request to modify his conditions 
from home confinement to curfew, so long as the defendant remained 
subject to location monitoring.  (ECF 662-1 ¶ 9.)   
 
Now, on the eve of his sentencing, the defendant asks the Court 
to terminate location monitoring altogether and lift his curfew.  
(ECF 864-1 ¶ 10.)  The defendant’s location monitoring is by 
telephone.  (Id.)  He claims he typically receives a location 
monitoring notification every night around 3:00a.m. or 4:00a.m. and 
that it is interrupting his sleep.  (Id.)  He also wishes to travel 
locally outside the home by car.  (Id. ¶ 11.) 
 
The Court should deny the defendant’s motion for at least three 
reasons: 
 
First, the location monitoring conditions initially imposed by 
the Court are still necessary to reasonably assure the defendant’s 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 865     Filed 08/11/21     Page 3 of 5   Page ID
#:15309

 
 
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
appearance at sentencing.  Nothing has changed in recent months that 
lessens or eliminates the risk of flight that is currently being 
mitigated by the location monitoring condition.  If anything, the 
closer the defendant gets to his September 27 sentencing hearing, the 
more likely he is to flee.  The government has conferred with 
Probation Officer Stacey Cooke, who is responsible for monitoring the 
defendant’s location, and she stated that she believes location 
monitoring should remain in place.  (Declaration of Christopher 
Fenton (“Fenton Decl.”) ¶ 2.) 
 
Second, the defendant’s claim that he typically receives 
location monitoring notifications every night around 3:00a.m. or 
4:00a.m. appears to be false.  Based on government counsel’s 
communication with Probation Officer Cooke, the government 
understands that the location monitoring notifications are random so 
as to prevent the defendant from knowing precisely when he will be 
required to check-in.  (Fenton Decl. ¶ 3.)  If, as the defendant 
claims, the location monitoring notifications requiring him to check-
in took place every night at the same time, the defendant would be 
able to ignore curfew and arrive home by 3:00a.m.  (Id.) 
 
Third, to the extent the defendant’s concerns are uninterrupted 
sleep and ability to travel outside his home by car, location 
monitoring by ankle bracelet presents a reasonable alternative that 
would address both issues.  The government and Probation Officer 
Cooke are agreeable to such a change from location monitoring by 
telephone to location monitoring by ankle bracelet.  (Fenton Decl. 
¶ 4.)  The defendant, however, is not.  (ECF 864-1 ¶ 12.)  
 
In conclusion, for the reasons set forth herein, some form of 
location monitoring remains necessary to reasonably assure the 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 865     Filed 08/11/21     Page 4 of 5   Page ID
#:15310

 
 
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
defendant’s appearance at his sentencing hearing.  Accordingly, to 
the extent the defendant is not agreeable to switch from location 
monitoring by telephone to location monitoring by ankle bracelet, the 
Court should deny the defendant’s motion.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 865     Filed 08/11/21     Page 5 of 5   Page ID
#:15311

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.813905.865.0.pdf

Size

102,391 bytes

SHA-256

ff0e145ea76af009649831e1a27e22770e112b9f628421bb7dbbe1e687fe377d

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.813905.865.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)