Defendant Arsen Terzyan’s Sentencing Memorandum; Exhibits, No. 2:25-cr-00456 (C.D. Cal., May 22, 2026)
Summary
Defendant Arsen Terzyan's sentencing memorandum in United States v. Terzyan, Case No. 2:25-CR-00456-MWC-1, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, dated and filed May 22, 2026 as Document 109 and signed by defense counsel Anna Osipov, for sentencing on June 5, 2026. It states that Terzyan pleaded guilty under the plea agreement to Counts One, Seven and Eight and that the stipulated actual loss was $1,166,670. The memorandum accepts the Probation Office's total offense level of 21 and advisory range of 41 to 51 months, noting a correction to the money laundering enhancement. It asks the court to adopt the Probation Office's recommendation of 37 months, three years' supervised release, a $300 special assessment and restitution of $1,166,670, and argues the sentence avoids disparity with a related case.
Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page 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
Cite this document
“Defendant Arsen Terzyan’s Sentencing Memorandum; Exhibits, No. 2:25-cr-00456 (C.D. Cal., May 22, 2026).”
Original at ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/sentencing-memorandum-usa-v-terzyan-dkt-109-c-d-cal-aacc1dbaec/
, SHA-256 88c44711a2267e13e85979d5934e4f9aabd333508658f2c7c08ac66efede9f15.Full text
Case 2:25-cr-00456-MWC Document 109 Filed 05/22/26 Page 1 of 21 Page ID
#:379
1 ANNA OSIPOV (CA SBN 265821)
OSIPOV LAW GROUP
2 15233 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1170
3 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone (818) 602-0552
4 Facsimile (818) 617-9608
5
Email: Anna@OsipovLawGroup.com
6 Attorney for Defendant
ARSEN TERZYAN
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
—WESTERN DIVISION—
11
12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Case No: 2:25-CR-00456-MWC-1
13
)
Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANT ARSEN TERZYAN’S
14 ) SENTENCING MEMORANDUM;
15 vs. ) EXHIBITS
)
16 ARSEN TERZYAN, ) Sentencing Date: June 5, 2026
17 ) Time: 10:00 a.m.
Defendant. )
18
) HON. MICHELLE W. COURT
19
20 Defendant Arsen Terzyan, by and through his attorney of record, Anna Osipov,
21 hereby submits his Sentencing Memorandum pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal
22
Procedure 32, setting forth the factors the Court should consider in determining what
23
24 type of sentence is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to achieve the purposes
25
of sentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
26
27 The attached memorandum is based upon the Presentence Investigation Report
28
(“PSR”) and Recommendation Letter prepared by the United States Probation Office
Case 2:25-cr-00456-MWC Document 109 Filed 05/22/26 Page 2 of 21 Page ID
#:380
1 (“USPO”), attached exhibits, documents and records on file in this matter, and any
2 argument or evidence that may be presented at the hearing which the Court may wish
3
to consider.
4
5 For the reasons discussed in detail herein, Mr. Terzyan respectfully requests
6
that the Court adopt the Presentence Investigation Report and Recommendation;
7
8 i.e., a custodial sentence of 37 months, followed by three years’ supervised release,
9
a special assessment of $300 and restitution of $1,166,670. This sentence should be
10
11
deemed, sufficient, but not greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of
12 sentencing under 3553(a), and will avoid any sentencing disparities with similarly
13
situation defendants.
14
15 Dated: May 22, 2026 Respectfully submitted,
16
17 /s/ Anna Osipov
18 ANNA OSIPOV
Attorney for Defendant
19 ARSEN TERZYAN
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case 2:25-cr-00456-MWC Document 109 Filed 05/22/26 Page 3 of 21 Page ID
#:381
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
Page
3 DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM ....................................................1
4
I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1
5
6 II. THE ADVISORY SENTENCING GUIDELINES CALCULATIONS ..................2
7 III. THE SENTENCE MUST BE “SUFFICIENT, BUT NOT GREATER THAN
8 NECESSARY” TO ACHIEVE THE PURPOSES OF SENTENCING UNDER
THE STATUTORY DIRECTIVES OF § 3553(a) ...............................................4
9
10 A. The Nature & Circumstances of The Offense & The History and
Characteristics of The Defendant Warrant The Requested Sentence ............4
11
12 B. The Need for The Sentence Imposed To: .................................................9
13
i. Reflect The Seriousness of The Offense, To Promote Respect for
14 The Law, And to Provide Just Punishment for The Offense...............9
15
ii. Afford Adequate Deterrence to Criminal Conduct .......................... 10
16
17
iii. To Protect the Public from Further Crimes of The Defendant .......... 13
18 C. The Requested Sentence Helps Avoid Unwarranted Sentence
19 Disparities............................................................................................ 13
20 IV. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................. 15
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
Case 2:25-cr-00456-MWC Document 109 Filed 05/22/26 Page 4 of 21 Page ID
#:382
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
Page(s)
3 U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES
4
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) ...................................................... passim
5
6 Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007) .......................................... 3, 8
7 Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007) .......................................................8
8
Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949)..................................................................4
9
10
CIRCUIT COURT CASES
11
12 United States v. Autery, 555 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2009).................................................. 12
13
United States v. Baker, 445 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. 2006)................................................... 17
14
United States v. Jones, 460 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2008) .....................................................9
15
16 United States v. Olhovsky, 562 F.3d 530 (3d Cir. 2009) ................................................4
17
United States v. Schroeder, 536 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2008)...............................................9
18
19 United States v. Simmons (Simmons II), 568 F.3d 564, 568 (5th Cir. 2009) .....................8
20 United States v. Whitehead, 532 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2008) ........................................... 10
21
22 DISTRICT COURT CASES
23
United States v. Dikiara, 50 F.Supp.3d 1029 (E.D. Wis. 2014).......................................7
24
25 United States v. Gerard, 782 F.Supp.2d 913 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) ........................................7
26
27
28
ii
Case 2:25-cr-00456-MWC Document 109 Filed 05/22/26 Page 5 of 21 Page ID
#:383
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.)
2
Page(s)
3
4 STATUTES & CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS
5 18 U.S.C. § 1343 ................................................................................................. 1, 14
6 18 U.S.C. § 1344 ..................................................................................................... 14
7 18 U.S.C. § 1956 ............................................................................................. 1, 3, 14
8 18 U.S.C. § 1957 ............................................................................................. 2, 3, 14
9
18 U.S.C. § 3551 ..................................................................................................... 10
10
18 U.S.C. § 3553 .............................................................................................. passim
11
18 U.S.C. § 3583 ..................................................................................................... 13
12
18 U.S.C. § 3661 .......................................................................................................4
13
28 U.S.C. § 994 .........................................................................................................9
14
Public Law No. 98-473, § 239, 98 Stat. 1987, 2039 (1984) .......................................... 10
15
16 U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES
17
§ 2B1.1 ............................................................................................................... 2, 14
18
§ 2S1.1 ........................................................................................................... 2, 3, 14
19
§ 3E1.1 ............................................................................................................... 2, 14
20
§ 4C1.1 ................................................................................................................... 14
21
§ 5H1.1................................................................................................................... 13
22
§ 5H1.5................................................................................................................... 13
23
§ 5H1.6................................................................................................................... 13
24
§ 5F1.2. .................................................................................................................. 13
25
26
27
28
iii
Case 2:25-cr-00456-MWC Document 109 Filed 05/22/26 Page 6 of 21 Page ID
#:384
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.)
2
Page(s)
3
4
U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION STATISTICS AND SURVEYS
5
6 U.S.S.C., Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History Computation of the Federal
Sentencing Guidelines, at 15 (2004),
7 http://www.ussc.gov/Research/Research_Publications/publications.cfm ................. 11, 13
8
EMPIRICAL DATA AND OTHER SOURCES
9
10 Richard G. Board, Operational Criteria for Determining Criminal Responsibility, 61
Colum.L.Rev. 221 (1961) ......................................................................................... 12
11
12 Francis T. Cullen, et al., Prisons Do Not Reduce Recidivism: The High Cost of
Ignoring Science, 91 Prison J. 48S, 50S-51S (2011) .................................................... 11
13
14 Zvi D. Gabbay, Exploring the Limits of the Restorative Justice Paradigm:
Restorative Justice and White Collar Crime, 8 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol. 421 (2007).... 13
15
16 Donald P. Green & Daniel Winik, Using Random Judge Assignments to Estimate the
17
Effects of Incarceration and Probation on Recidivism among Drug Offenders, 48
Criminology 357 (2010) ........................................................................................... 11
18
19 Andrew von Hirsch et al., Criminal Deterrence and Sentence Severity: An Analysis
of Recent Research (1999) ........................................................................................ 10
20
21 Michael Tonry, Purposes and Functions of Sentencing, Crime and Justice: A Review
of Research (2006)................................................................................................... 11
22
23 David Weisburd, et al., Specific Deterrence in a Sample of Offenders Convicted of
White Collar Crimes, 33 Criminology 587 (1995)....................................................... 12
24
25
26
27
28
iv
Case 2:25-cr-00456-MWC Document 109 Filed 05/22/26 Page 7 of 21 Page ID
#:385
1 DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
2
I.
3 INTRODUCTION
4
On June 10, 2025, an eighteen-count Indictment was filed against defendant Arsen
5
6 Terzyan, CR 2:25-00456-MWC. See dkt no. 64. Mr. Terzyan was charged in Counts One
7
(1) through Seven (7) with Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), and in Counts Eight (8)
8
through Eighteen (18) with Transactional Money Laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1957).1
9
10 On January 30, 2026, Mr. Terzyan entered into a plea agreement with the
11
government. Plea Agreement (cited hereinafter as “PA”), at dkt no. 95. On February 20,
12
13
2026, he pleaded guilty before the Court, pursuant to the written plea agreement, to
14 Counts One, Seven and Eight. See Criminal Minutes--Change of Plea, dkt no. 105.
15
The Plea Agreement provides the factual basis of the offense. See PA, dkt no. 95,
16
17 at pp.19-26. In sum, defendant applied for, and obtained, funds from programs authorized
18 through the CARES Act. For instance, defendant used his existing restaurant business,
19
Grub House, Inc., to apply for relief funds. In one application, defendant “falsely
20
21 represented that Grub House’s revenue for 12 months preceding January 31, 2020, was
22
$433,441.” PA at p.21 (The actual revenue was $50,000. Id.). These false representations
23
were material to the agency’s decision to approve the application. PA at p.22. As a result,
24
25 defendant received $149,900. Id. Additionally, defendant submitted a subsequent
26
27
28 1 The Indictment also includes forfeiture allegations.
-1-
Case 2:25-cr-00456-MWC Document 109 Filed 05/22/26 Page 8 of 21 Page ID
#:386
1
application to increase the amount to $350,000, for a total of $500,000, using fraudulent
2 tax returns with incorrect revenues. PA p.23.
3
In March 2021, defendant applied for funds under the Restaurant Revitalization
4
5 Fund (“RRF”). PA p.23. Among other things, he stated that Grub House’s annual
6 revenues were $1,423,441. PA p.24. The application was approved and $1,864,830 was
7
transferred to the business bank account. Id.
8
9 Defendant admits that “the aggregate actual loss that defendant caused by the
10
misrepresentations and misuse of pandemic stimulus funds described above was
11
$1,166,670.” PA p.26. “The parties agree that the actual loss figure is legally appropriate
12
13 under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1) et seq.” Id.
14
II.
15 THE ADVISORY SENTENCING GUIDELINES CALCULATIONS
16
The USPO’s advisory Guidelines calculations are as follows:
17
18 Base Offense Level: 7 [§ 2B1.1(a)(1)]
+14 [§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(H)(loss more than $550k)]
19 Specific Offense
20 Characteristics:
+2 [§ 2B1.1(b)(10)(sophisticated means)]
21 +1 [§ 2S1.1(b)(2)(A)(§1957 conviction)]
22 Acceptance -3 [§ 3E1.1(a), (b)]
Total Offense Level = 21
23
24 PSR, at ¶¶ 43-49.
25
This assessment is in accordance with the plea agreement stipulations by the parties
26
27
except for one issue. The plea agreement incorrectly noted that a 2 level enhancement
28 applies for money laundering under U.S.S.G. §2S1.1(b)(2)(A). PA p.8. In actuality,
-2-
Case 2:25-cr-00456-MWC Document 109 Filed 05/22/26 Page 9 of 21 Page ID
#:387
1
§2S1.1(b)(2)(A) corresponds to a 1 level enhancement because defendant stands convicted
2 under 18 U.S.C. §1957, not §1956, as corrected by the USPO. See PSR p.5 n.1. The
3
Supreme Court emphasized that "a district court should begin all sentencing proceedings
4
5 by correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range." Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
6 38, 49, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007)(emphasis added).
7
The USPO assessed three (3) criminal history points, resulting in a designation of
8
9 Criminal History Category III. PSR ¶¶ 60-61. Thus, the advisory sentencing range is 41 to
10
51 months. The USPO is recommending a custodial sentence of 37 months, followed by
11
three years of supervised release. See Recommendation Letter, dkt no. 105.2
12
13 Defendant agrees with the Guidelines’ assessments by the USPO and thus does not
14
have any objections. The advisory sentencing range of 41 to 51 months should be the
15
16
“starting point and initial benchmark” prior to considering several mitigating factors
17 under the Court’s 3553-analysis.
18
After review of the totality of the factors present in this case and the detailed
19
20 §3553(a) analysis by the USPO in the PSR and Recommendation Letter, undersigned
21 counsel believes that a sentence of 37 months is sufficient, but not greater than necessary
22
to achieve the purposes of sentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). This sentence also
23
24 alleviates an unwarranted sentencing disparity in a related case. Therefore, the defense
25
26
27
2The USPO is also recommending a special assessment of $300 and a restitution amount
28 of $1,166,670.
-3-
Case 2:25-cr-00456-MWC Document 109 Filed 05/22/26 Page 10 of 21 Page ID
#:388
1
respectfully requests the Court consider imposing the sentence recommendation by the
2 Probation Office.
3
III.
4 THE SENTENCE MUST BE “SUFFICIENT, BUT NOT
5 GREATER THAN NECESSARY” TO ACHIEVE THE PURPOSES OF
SENTENCING UNDER THE STATUTORY DIRECTIVES OF § 3553(a)(2)
6
7 The Court is respectfully urged to consider the offender as well as the offense,
8
keeping in mind that it is not “severe punishment that promotes respect for the law, it is
9
appropriate punishment.” United States v. Olhovsky, 562 F.3d 530, 549-51 (3d Cir. 2009)
10
11 (emphasis in original); see also Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 247 (1949).
12
A. The Nature And Circumstances Of The Offense & The History And
13 Characteristics Of The Defendant Warrant The Requested Sentence
14
The following social history of Arsen Terzyan is provided in the spirit of 18
15
16
U.S.C. § 3661, which states “that no limitation shall be placed on the information
17 concerning the background, character and conduct of a person convicted of an offense
18
which a Court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing
19
20 an appropriate sentence.”
21 Arsen Terzyan, age 43, has promptly accepted responsibility for his actions,
22
demonstrated remorse and now comes before this Court for sentencing. Arsen is a non-
23
24 violent, white-collar offender.
25
Arsen was born in Armenia to the marital union of Oganes and Asmik. PSR ¶66.
26
27
His father, Oganes, passed away in 2025 after battling cancer for several years. Id. Arsen
28 has two brothers, Mesrop and Artur. PSR ¶67.
-4-
Case 2:25-cr-00456-MWC Document 109 Filed 05/22/26 Page 11 of 21 Page ID
#:389
1
Arsen and his family immigrated to the United States in 1988 when he was five
2 years old due to the turmoil in Armenia at the time. PSR ¶68. The Soviet Union was
3
beginning to collapse; a devasting earthquake claimed the lives of 50,000 people; and a
4
5 war had broken out between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
6 Arsen was raised in a tight-knit, Christian family who attended church every
7
Sunday. PSR ¶69. His parents always organized outdoor activities and vacations. Id. He
8
9 recalls, however, that he grew up in a dangerous neighborhood in Van Nuys, where he
10
was bullied as a teenager by other ethnic groups. PSR ¶70. In one event, he was hit in the
11
head with a glass bottle by a Mexican group of 10-15 individuals due to the rivalry
12
13 between Armenians and Mexicans at that time. Id.
14
In July 2006, Arsen married his wife, Vera. PSR ¶71. Vera is successfully self-
15
16
employed. She owns a children’s daycare for preschoolers. Id.
17 The couple has three children: Anjela (age 19), Kristina (age 17), and Tony (age
18
12). PSR ¶72. Anjela is attending a Catholic university on a scholarship and works for
19
20 her mother, as well. PSR ¶72. The other two children are in high school and middle
21 school, respectively. Id. Arsen is, and always has been, very “hands-on” as a father—
22
“meeting his children’s financial and emotional needs,” supporting their extracurricular
23
24 activities, such as tennis, swimming, painting, and boxing. Id.
25
Arsen’s strong family ties and responsibilities are reflected in the letters addressed
26
27
to the Court, which are attached hereto as Exhibit A. In his letter, Arsen provides insight
28
-5-
Case 2:25-cr-00456-MWC Document 109 Filed 05/22/26 Page 12 of 21 Page ID
#:390
1
into the circumstances which led to this offense and demonstrates genuine remorse for his
2 foolish choices. Id.
3
Arsen’s wife of 26 years, Vera, conveys how the pandemic was the catalyst to
4
5 Arsen’s foolish choices which led to this criminal matter:
6 ….
7
My husband, Arsen, is very family oriented. When we were
8 separated, he tried doing everything to bring his family back, and
9 in the end, he accomplished that. He takes pride in being a loving
husband and father and even through our falling out, I could not
10
ask for a better husband and father for our children. He truly does
11 everything for his family; he never likes to see his children upset
and will do everything to keep them happy.
12
13 While I understand that everyone makes mistakes, I firmly believe
14
that some of those mistakes can stem from desperate
circumstances. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when panic and
15 financial uncertainly gripped many families, Arsen felt immense
16
pressure to provide for us. His actions, though misguided, were
driven by a deep love for our family and desire to ensure we did
17 not end up in dire straits.
18
Arsen is a man of faith and possesses a heart of gold. He has
19 always been devoted to his family and has strived to be a positive
20 influence in our community. Honorable Judge, I respectfully
request that you consider granting him house arrest instead of
21 serving more penalties. This would allow him to remain actively
22 involved in our children’s lives, which is crucial for their well-
being. Our children greatly depend on him and he on them.
23
24 I understand that gravity of the situation and the importance of
accountability, however, I sincerely ask you to consider the
25
impact on our family when making your decision. Thank you for
26 taking the time to read my letter.
27
May God bless you and the decision you will make for my
28 husband. ….
-6-
Case 2:25-cr-00456-MWC Document 109 Filed 05/22/26 Page 13 of 21 Page ID
#:391
1
Ex. A at p.1-2. “[F]inancial desperation . . . lends explanation, though not excuse, to the
2 activities for which [the defendant] is now being sentenced.” United States v. Gerard, 782
3
F.Supp.2d 913, 915 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)(imposing sentence of five years’ probation,
4
5 notwithstanding Guidelines range of 33 to 41months).
6 Significantly, these crimes were committed during the worst pandemic in this
7
country’s history. Arsen’s only source of income came crashing down as a result. His
8
9 involvement was induced by his confluence of financial and emotional pressures. His
10
desire to put food on the table was the impetus of his involvement in this offense. The
11
Guidelines, however, do not account for motive. See United States v. Dikiara, 50 F.
12
13 Supp. 3d 1029, 1032 (E.D. Wis. 2014)(noting that “the [loss] guideline fails to take into
14
account other relevant factors, including motive and culpability”).
15
16
Of course, none of this justifies Arsen’s poor judgement in committing this offense.
17 His frustration with his inability to provide for his family proved too much to handle.
18
Arsen’s children, relatives, and members of the clergy have written letters to the
19
20 Court. See Ex. A, pp. 5-11. By all accounts, Arsen a hardworking family-man whose
21 entire life revolves around his family and bettering the lives of others in the community.
22
For instance, Mesrop describes Arsen as “a beacon of light and positivity” who
23
24 touched his “life but has also had a profound impact on many others.” Id. Nanor writes:
25
“In a world where kindness can sometimes be overlooked, Arsen serves as a reminder of
26
27
the positive impact one individual can have on the lives of others.” Id.
28
-7-
Case 2:25-cr-00456-MWC Document 109 Filed 05/22/26 Page 14 of 21 Page ID
#:392
1
Senior Chaplain Rafi Ohanes, who serves in the Los Angeles County Jails since
2 1994, explains the steps Arsen is taking toward completely changing his life around:
3
For the past several months, I have visited Arsen Terzyan. I met
4 him initially by recommendation of other sober and reformed
5 youth. When I met him, I learned that Arsen has been searching
for spiritual guidance and seeking leadership on living a righteous
6 lifestyle. From there, we started Bible studies, prayers and other
7 spiritual counseling sessions for the past several months. What I
have seen is a significant growth and transformation in his attitude
8 and overall demeaner. He is much more positive and wakes up
9 every day eager to serve his family and community in an honest
way. It is my opinion that he has started the journey of reforming
10
his life and wants to continue living a righteous and honest
11 lifestyle. If the court can grant him some grace and mercy, I will
continue to follow up and provide additional spiritual guidance
12
and support. The theme that runs through these letters is of a
13 remarkable family man, father, husband, son and brother who
14
acted out of character and, by all indications, has demonstrated his
sincere remorse for his actions.
15
16
Ex. A, p.12
17 Reverand Fr. Shnork Demirjian conveys how Arsen and his family attend Sunday
18
services and how he “has always shown willingness to support the church during various
19
20 events.” PSR p.13. He describes Arsen’s charact as one of reliable, polite and caring.
21 Arsen’s family ties and responsibilities are a mitigating factor warranting a variance
22
from the Guidelines. 3 Courts have untangled the Sentencing Commission’s conflation of
23
24
25
3 After Booker, it should be “pellucidly clear” that the particular factors in any given case
need not be “extraordinary” to warrant a variance from the Guidelines. Gall, 552 U.S. at
26 41. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit has held unequivocally that after Gall and Kimbrough v.
27 United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), “[w]ithout a doubt, the requirement of ‘extraordinary
circumstances’ is no longer the law.” United States v. Simmons (Simmons II), 568 F.3d
28 564, 568 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Jones, 460 F.3d 191,
-8-
Case 2:25-cr-00456-MWC Document 109 Filed 05/22/26 Page 15 of 21 Page ID
#:393
1
the culpability of the defendant with the impact of imprisonment on the defendant’s
2 dependents. In United States v. Schroeder, 536 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2008), the Court stated
3
that “extraordinary family circumstances can constitute a legitimate basis for imposing a
4
5 below-guidelines sentence.” Id. at 755. However, the Court explained that the fact that a
6 defendant’s criminal conduct was the cause of a family’s hardship is “obvious” and “not
7
dispositive.” Id. “When a defendant presents an argument based on extraordinary family
8
9 circumstances, the relevant inquiry is the effect of the defendant’s absence on his family
10
members. The defendant’s responsibility for the adverse effects of his incarceration is not
11
the determinative issue. If it were, there would never be an occasion on which the court
12
13 would be justified in invoking family circumstances to impose a below-Guidelines
14
sentence.” Id.
15
16
B. The Need For The Sentence Imposed To —
17 i. Reflect The Seriousness Of The Offense, To Promote Respect For The
18 Law, And To Provide Just Punishment For The Offense
19 Congress directed the Sentencing Commission to “ensure that the guidelines
20
reflect the general appropriateness of imposing a sentence other than imprisonment in
21
22 cases in which the defendant has not been convicted of a crime of violence or an
23
otherwise serious offense, and the “general appropriateness of imposing a term of
24
imprisonment on a person convicted of a crime of violence that results in serious bodily
25
26 194–95 (2d Cir. 2008) (the government’s reliance on pre-Booker policy statements and
27 court decisions revealed a fundamental “misconception” concerning today’s non -
Guideline sentences).
28
-9-
Case 2:25-cr-00456-MWC Document 109 Filed 05/22/26 Page 16 of 21 Page ID
#:394
1
injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 994(j). Congress issued this directive in the belief that “sentencing
2 decisions should be designed to ensure that prison resources are, first and foremost,
3
reserved for those violent and serious criminal offenders who pose the most dangerous
4
5 threat to society,” and that “in cases of nonviolent and non-serious offenders, the interests
6 of society as a whole as well as individual victims of crime can continue to be served
7
through the imposition of alternative sentences, such as restitution and community
8
9 service.” See Pub. L. No. 98-473, § 239, 98 Stat. 1987, 2039 (1984) (set forth at 18
10
U.S.C. § 3551).
11
Arsen is plainly not a “violent and serious offender” who “pose[s] the most
12
13 dangerous threat to society.”4 To the contrary, Arsen wishes to continue working to
14
support his dependent family members. He is a white-collar, non-violent offender who
15
16
clearly acted out of desperation. In short, a variance from the Guidelines is needed to
17 avoid its restrictive policies on these issues.
18
ii. Afford Adequate Deterrence to Criminal Conduct
19
20 The empirical evidence is unanimous that there is no relationship between
21
sentence length and general or specific deterrence, regardless of the type of crime. 5 The
22
23 4 In United States v. Whitehead, 532 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), the Ninth
24 Circuit affirmed a probationary sentence despite the guideline range of 41-57 months for
25
creating counterfeit access devices; explaining that the district court had “properly take[n]
into account” its “finding that Whitehead’s [nonviolent] crime ‘[di]d not pose the same
26 danger to the community as many other crimes.’” Id. at 993.
27
5 See Andrew von Hirsch et al., Criminal Deterrence and Sentence Severity: An Analysis
28 of Recent Research (1999) (concluding that “correlations between sentence severity and
- 10 -
Case 2:25-cr-00456-MWC Document 109 Filed 05/22/26 Page 17 of 21 Page ID
#:395
1
Sentencing Commission has found that “[t]here is no correlation between recidivism and
2 Guidelines’ offense level. . . . While surprising at first glance, this finding should be
3
expected. The Guidelines’ offense level is not intended or designed to predict
4
5 recidivism.” U.S.S.C., Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History Computation of the
6 Federal Sentencing Guidelines, at 15 (2004) (hereinafter, “Measuring Recidivism”).6
7
And according to “the best available evidence, . . . prisons do not reduce recidivism more
8
9 than noncustodial sanctions.” Francis T. Cullen, et al., Prisons Do Not Reduce
10
Recidivism: The High Cost of Ignoring Science, 91 Prison J. 48S, 50S-51S (2011).
11
A sentence of 37 months, followed by 3 years of supervised release serves as a
12
13 deterrent. Beyond the extensive limits on a supervised releasee’s freedom, yet another
14
punishment inherent in supervision is the proverbial hangman’s noose. At any slip or
15
16
crime rates . . . were not sufficient to achieve statistical significance,” and that “the studies
17 reviewed do not provide a basis for inferring that increasing the severity of sentences
18 generally is capable of enhancing deterrent effects”); Michael Tonry, Purposes and
Functions of Sentencing, Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 28-29 (2006)
19 (“[I]ncreases in severity of punishments do not yield significant (if any) marginal deterrent
20 effects. . . . Three National Academy of Science panels, all appointed by Republican
presidents, reached that conclusion, as has every major survey of the evidence.”); Donald
21
P. Green & Daniel Winik, Using Random Judge Assignments to Estimate the Effects of
22 Incarceration and Probation on Recidivism among Drug Offenders, 48 Criminology 357
(2010) (study of over a thousand offenders whose sentences varied substantially in prison
23
time and probation found that such variations “have no detectable effect on rates of re-
24 arrest,” and that “[t]hose assigned by chance to receive prison time and their counterparts
25
who received no prison time were re-arrested at similar rates over a four-year time
frame”).
26
27
6U.S.S.C., Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History Computation of the Federal
Sentencing Guidelines, at 15 (2004),
28 http://www.ussc.gov/Research/Research_Publications/publications.cfm
- 11 -
Case 2:25-cr-00456-MWC Document 109 Filed 05/22/26 Page 18 of 21 Page ID
#:396
1
violation of the release conditions, the noose can be tightened and the offender
2 imprisoned. The Ninth Circuit used this very metaphor when it upheld a probationary
3
sentence rather than imprisonment in a child pornography case.
4
5 It is said that there is nothing like being sentenced to hang in the
morning to focus a man’s thoughts, and it is improbable that the
6 district court’s stern warning will be an ineffective deterrent in
7 this case.
8 United States v. Autery, 555 F.3d 864, 876 (9th Cir. 2009).
9
Supervised release, then, is not just a momentary loss of freedoms—it entails an
10
11 overhanging and continuing threat of greater losses. Trial courts have the inherent power
12
to tighten the noose by extending the supervised period, or exacting harsher conditions,
13
14
requiring home confinement, or requiring the supervisee to serve prison time. Thus, the
15 threat of imprisonment is a deterrent factor: “Deterrence involves the prevention of
16
criminal acts by the threat of punishment, which is addressed to the aversion to being
17
18 punished.” Richard G. Board, Operational Criteria for Determining Criminal
19 Responsibility, 61 Colum. L. Rev. 221 (1961). Imposing the requested sentence will
20
punish Arsen, and this Court’s supervisory power over him will serve as a sufficiently
21
22 effective deterrent.
23
Additionally, research regarding white-collar offenders in particular (presumably
24
the most rational of potential offenders) found no difference in the deterrent effect of
25
26 probation and that of imprisonment. See David Weisburd et al., Specific Deterrence in a
27
Sample of Offenders Convicted of White Collar Crimes, 33 Criminology 587 (1995); see
28
- 12 -
Case 2:25-cr-00456-MWC Document 109 Filed 05/22/26 Page 19 of 21 Page ID
#:397
1
also Zvi D. Gabbay, Exploring the Limits of the Restorative Justice Paradigm:
2 Restorative Justice and White Collar Crime, 8 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol. 421, 448-49
3
(2007)(“[T]here is no decisive evidence to support the conclusion that harsh sentences
4
5 actually have a general and specific deterrent effect on potential white-collar offenders.”).
6 iii. To Protect The Public From Further Crimes Of The Defendant
7
The offense was committed under extenuating circumstances for which Arsen is
8
9 extremely contrite. Imposing a lengthy prison term in this instance would not serve to
10
protect the public.
11
Under the Guidelines, age (§ 5H1.1), employment record (§ 5H1.5) and family ties
12
13 and responsibilities (§ 5H1.6) are not “ordinarily relevant” in determining the sentence.
14
But under § 3553(a)(2)(C), they are plainly relevant to the issue of “protecting the public
15
16
from further crimes of the defendant.” See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 765.
17 Arsen is 42 years old, has a long and successful employment record and financially
18
and emotionally provides for his wife and three children. All of these factors separately
19
20 diminish the risk of recidivism. See Measuring Recidivism, at Exs. 9 and 10. Taken in
21 combination, the risk of recidivism rate is certainly much lower.
22
C. The Requested Sentence Helps Avoid Unwarranted Sentence Disparities
23
24 Several defendants were charged with identical conduct in related cases. See PSR
25
¶14. Defendant Ashot Bejanyan, for instance, received a sentence of 24 months and one
26
27
day, which the Court, pursuant to its authority under “18 U.S.C. §3583(d), (e)(4) and
28 U.S.S.G. §5F1.2,” split the sentence into 12 months and one day in BOP custody and “12
- 13 -
Case 2:25-cr-00456-MWC Document 109 Filed 05/22/26 Page 20 of 21 Page ID
#:398
1
months in home confinement as a special condition of the term of supervised release.” See
2 J&C at dkt no. 180, in 2:25-CR-00450-CV-4.
3
There, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of 18 U.S.C. §1344 and one count
4
5 of 18 U.S.C. §1956. Id. The parties stipulated to the following Guidelines calculations:
6 Base Offense Level: 8 [§ 2S1.1(a)(1)]
7 +18 [§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(J)(loss more than $3.5m)]
Specific Offense
8 Characteristics:
9 +2 [§ 2B1.1(b)(10)(sophisticated means)]
+2 [§ 2S1.1(b)(2)(A)(§1956 conviction)]
10
-2 [§ 4C1.1(zero-point offender)]
11 Acceptance -3 [§ 3E1.1(a), (b)]
Total Offense Level = 25
12
13 See Plea Agreement, dkt no. 156 at p.9, in 2:25-CR-00450-CV-4.
14
For comparison to the instant matter, the Guideline assessment in the PSR is:
15
16
Base Offense Level: 7 [§ 2B1.1(a)(1)]
+14 [§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(H)(loss more than $550k)]
17 Specific Offense
18 Characteristics:
+2 [§ 2B1.1(b)(10)(C)(sophisticated means)]
19 +1 [§ 2S1.1(b)(2)(A)(§1957 conviction)]
20 Acceptance -3 [§ 3E1.1(a), (b)]
Total Offense Level = 21
21
22 There are four distinguishing factors to consider. First, the most significant
23
difference is the loss amount calculation, which is several times larger than the instant
24
case (18 level enhancement, $3.5m-$9.5m, versus 14 levels, $550k-1.5m). Second, the a
25
26 one-level difference in the base offense levels, indicating that the Sentencing Commission
27
views Bejanyan’s offense slightly more severe. Third, the two-level versus one-level
28
- 14 -
Case 2:25-cr-00456-MWC Document 109 Filed 05/22/26 Page 21 of 21 Page ID
#:399
1
enhancement for convictions under 1956 as opposed to 1957, respectively. Lastly, Mr.
2 Terzyan was placed in Criminal History Category II, while Bejanyan received a two-level
3
reduction for a first offense, which in actuality shifted the respective sentencing ranges,
4
5 thereby reducing, if not eliminating, the disparity on that point. Thus, when analyzing the
6 other factors in §3553, although a sentence similar to Bejanyan would be justified in order
7
to avoid any sentencing disparities that remain, the defense requests the Court adopt the
8
9 recommendation of the USPO in this matter.
10
IV.
11 CONCLUSION
12
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Arsen Terzyan respectfully requests that the
13
14 Court consider imposing, in accordance with the findings and recommendations of the
15 Probation Office, a custodial sentence of 37 months, followed by three years’
16
supervised release, a special assessment of $300 and restitution of $1,166,670.
17
18 Dated: May 22, 2026 Respectfully submitted,
19
20 /s/ Anna Osipov
21 ANNA OSIPOV
Attorney for Defendant
22
ARSEN TERZYAN
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 15 -
File and source
- File
- 109-sentencing-memorandum-filed-by-defendant-arsen-terzyan.pdf
- Size
- 351,271 bytes
- SHA-256
- 88c44711a2267e13e85979d5934e4f9aabd333508658f2c7c08ac66efede9f15
- Original
- PACER (login required)