EO: ORDER DENYING MOVANT'S REQUEST FOR A HEARING AND ORDERING MOVANT TO FILE ITS RENEWED… — USA v. Kao (Dkt. 187)

Summary

Minute Order, Document 187, dated 2/25/2026 in United States of America v. Martin Kao, Case Number 1:21-cr-00061-LEK-1 (D. Haw.), by Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi: an entering order denying movant's request for a hearing and ordering movant to file its renewed request. The order says that on February 18, 2026, PacMar Technologies LLC filed a letter asking the Court to schedule a hearing on the amount of restitution owed to PacMar. The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the request for a hearing and orders PacMar to file a renewed request as a motion with a memorandum explaining at a minimum why the Court retains jurisdiction to order restitution after sentencing. It cites an Amended Judgment ordering restitution of $12,841,490 to the U.S. Small Business Administration; the Court will then set a briefing schedule and decide whether to hold a hearing.

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

Record facts

Full text

MINUTE ORDER 
 
 
CASE NUMBER: 
1:21-cr-00061-LEK-1 
 
CASE NAME: 
United States of America v. Martin Kao 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
Leslie E. Kobayashi 
 
DATE: 
 
2/25/2026 
 
 
COURT ACTION: EO: ORDER DENYING MOVANT’S REQUEST FOR A 
HEARING AND ORDERING MOVANT TO FILE ITS RENEWED REQUEST 
 
 
On February 18, 2026, Movant PacMar Technologies LLC, formerly known as 
Martin Defense Group, LLC and as Navatek LLC (“PacMar”), filed a letter “request[ing] 
that the Court schedule a hearing . . . to hear and determine the amount of restitution 
owed to PacMar based on a forthcoming renewed request for restitution which will be 
promptly filed with the Court upon the scheduling of the hearing.” [Dkt. no. 185 at 1.] 
 
 
The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE PacMar’s request to schedule a 
hearing. PacMar is ORDERED to file its renewed request for restitution (“Renewed 
Request”). The Renewed Request should be filed as a motion with a memorandum in 
support of the motion. The memorandum should, at a minimum, explain why the Court 
retains jurisdiction to order restitution after the conclusion of sentencing. See Amended 
Judgment in a Criminal Case, filed 2/24/25 (dkt. no. 153), at 7 (ordering restitution of 
$12,841,490 to the U.S. Small Business Administration). After it receives PacMar’s 
Renewed Request, the Court will set a briefing schedule. Once the Renewed Request is 
fully briefed, the Court will determine whether to hold a hearing. If the Court determines 
that a hearing is not necessary, it will take the matter under advisement and will issue a 
written order that resolves the Renewed Request. 
 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 
 
Submitted by: Carla Cortez, Courtroom Manager 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 187     Filed 02/25/26     Page 1 of 1  PageID.2260

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.hid.154418.187.0.pdf

Size

80,579 bytes

SHA-256

d05eb4aa7b719a9c957f9477ec8fa0356c037444545a83212928f360bda041db

Our copy

gov.uscourts.hid.154418.187.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)