EO: ORDER DIRECTING MOVANT TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION IN… — USA v. Kao (Dkt. 197)

Summary

Minute Order, Document 197, dated 4/30/2026 in USA v. Martin Kao, Case Number 1:21-cr-00061-LEK-1 (D. Haw.), by Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi: an entering order directing movant to file a supplemental memorandum with supporting documentation in support of its renewed motion for restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A and § 3664. The order recites PacMar's March 10, 2026 renewed motion, the government's March 26, 2026 response in support, Kao's April 8, 2026 opposition, and PacMar's April 14, 2026, reply. The Court says Kao's memorandum raises valid objections to PacMar's substantiation and orders PacMar to file a Supplement by May 14, 2026 addressing the concerns raised at the April 30, 2025 hearing. Kao may respond by May 28, 2026, and PacMar may reply by June 4, 2026.

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: 
USA v. Martin Kao 
 
  
 
JUDGE:     Leslie E. Kobayashi 
DATE: 
4/30/2026 
 
 
 
COURT ACTION:  EO: 
ORDER DIRECTING MOVANT TO FILE A 
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION IN 
SUPPORT OF ITS RENEWED MOTION FOR RESTITUTION PURSUANT TO 18 
U.S.C. § 3663A AND § 3664 
 
 
On March 10, 2026, Movant PacMar Technologies LLC, formerly known as 
Martin Defense Group, LLC, formerly known as Navatek LLC (“PacMar”), filed its 
Renewed Motion for Restitution Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A and § 3664 (“3/10 
Motion”). [Dkt. no. 190.] Plaintiff United States of America (“the Government”) filed a 
response in support of the 3/10 Motion on March 26, 2026. [Dkt. no. 193.] Defendant 
Martin Kao (“Kao”) filed his memorandum in opposition to the 3/10 Motion on April 8, 
2026, and PacMar filed its reply on April 14, 2026. [Dkt. nos. 195, 196.]  
 
 
Kao “generally agrees” that the Court retains jurisdiction to award PacMar 
delayed restitution. See Mem. in Opp. at 3; cf. Minute Order - EO: Order Denying 
Movant’s Request for a Hearing and Ordering Movant to File its Renewed Request, filed 
2/25/26 (dkt. no. 187) (ordering PacMar to file a memorandum explaining, at a minimum, 
“why the Court retains jurisdiction to order restitution after the conclusion of sentencing” 
(citation omitted)). Kao’s memorandum in opposition, however, raises valid objections to 
PacMar’s substantiation of its renewed request for restitution. 
 
 
Accordingly, PacMar is ORDERED to file a supplemental memorandum with 
supporting documentation for its renewed request for restitution (“Supplement”) by May 
14, 2026. The Supplement should, at a minimum, address the concerns that the Court 
raised at the April 30, 2025 hearing when it denied PacMar’s request for restitution 
without prejudice. See Minutes - EP: Hearing Re: to determine the amount owed to 
PacMar, f/k/a Navatek, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5), filed 4/30/25 (dkt. no. 180). 
Kao may file a response to the Supplement by May 28, 2026 and, if Kao files a response, 
PacMar may file an optional reply by June 4, 2026. Once PacMar has filed its 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 197     Filed 04/30/26     Page 1 of 2  PageID.2466

2 
 
Supplement and the applicable filing deadlines have passed, 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 3/10 
Motion. 
 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 
 
  
Submitted by:  Carla Cortez, Courtroom Manager 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 197     Filed 04/30/26     Page 2 of 2  PageID.2467

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.hid.154418.197.0.pdf

Size

113,351 bytes

SHA-256

6b5583d972f9bcc823cb988d4229cd76a29c025d1850d1f027bba28dde9085cf

Our copy

gov.uscourts.hid.154418.197.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)