Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings PPP Attempt Conspiracy Legal Filings EO: ORDER DENYING MOVANT'S REQUEST FOR A HEARING AND ORDERING MOVANT… — PPP Attempt Con…

Court filing

EO: ORDER DENYING MOVANT'S REQUEST FOR A HEARING AND ORDERING MOVANT… — PPP Attempt Conspiracy Legal Filings (Dkt. 187)

No. 1:21-cr-00061-LEK · Doc. 187 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

A Minute Order of Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi, Document 187, filed February 25, 2026 in United States of America v. Martin Kao, No. 1:21-cr-00061-LEK. It addresses a February 18, 2026 letter (dkt. no. 185) from movant PacMar Technologies LLC, formerly known as Martin Defense Group, LLC and as Navatek LLC, asking the Court to schedule a hearing on the amount of restitution owed to PacMar. The Court denies the hearing request without prejudice and orders PacMar to file its renewed request for restitution as a motion with a supporting memorandum. The memorandum should at a minimum explain why the Court retains jurisdiction to order restitution after sentencing, citing the Amended Judgment filed February 24, 2025 (dkt. no. 153), which ordered 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

Full text

Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK      Document 187      Filed 02/25/26    Page 1 of 1 PageID.2260



                                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

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.hid.154417.187.0.pdf
Size
80,579 bytes
SHA-256
88879dea5fd5ca74dde0bdaaa8f7e1e0b18b25639c836b89fd407ec18bc4960f
Our copy
gov.uscourts.hid.154417.187.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top