Court filing
EO: ORDER DIRECTING MOVANT TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM WITH… — PPP Attempt Conspiracy Legal Filings (Dkt. 197)
No. 1:21-cr-00061-LEK · Doc. 197 · Docket on CourtListener
Summary
A minute order by Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi in USA v. Martin Kao, No. 1:21-cr-00061-LEK, filed April 30, 2026 as Document 197. It addresses the Renewed Motion for Restitution Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A and § 3664 filed March 10, 2026 by PacMar Technologies LLC, formerly Martin Defense Group, LLC and Navatek LLC [Dkt. no. 190], which the government supported and Kao opposed. The order states that Kao generally agrees the Court retains jurisdiction to award delayed restitution but raises valid objections to PacMar's substantiation. It orders PacMar to file a supplemental memorandum with supporting documentation by May 14, 2026, which should address concerns raised at the April 30, 2025 hearing. Kao may file a response by May 28, 2026, and if he does, PacMar may file an optional reply by June 4, 2026, after which the Court will 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 197 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID.2466
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 2 of 2 PageID.2467
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
2
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.hid.154417.197.0.pdf
- Size
- 113,351 bytes
- SHA-256
- 5e64df0ce96400974556269c5aa761a7efebb2fc943638ebefef5d4eff24512b
- Original
- PACER (login required)