Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 501 Filed 09/26/22 PageID.7438 Page 1 of 8
`
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS,
`GLOVSKYAND POPEO, P.C.
`Randy K. Jones, SBN 141711
`3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Telephone: (858) 314-1500
`Email: rkjones@mintz.com
`
`Daniel J. Goodrich, BBO 692624 (Pro Hac)
`Ryan Dougherty, BBO 703380 (Pro Hac)
`1 Financial Center
`Boston, MA 02111
`Telephone: (617) 542-6000
`Email: djgoodrich@mintz.com
` rtdougherty@mintz.com
`
`Attorneys for Mark Manoogian
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`MARK MANOOGIAN
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO.: 18-CR-4683-GPC
`Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel
`SENTENCING MEMORANDUM ON
`BEHALF OF MARK MANOOGIAN
`
`Defendant, Mark Manoogian, through his counsel, respectfully submits this Sentencing
`Memorandum ahead of his sentencing on October 3, 2022.
`I.
`Introduction
`Defendant Mark Manoogian entered a guilty plea before this Honorable Court on June 10,
`2022, to one count of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1037(a)(5) and (b)(3), electronic mail fraud, a misdemeanor.
`Mr. Manoogian files this sentencing memorandum and requests this Court to follow the joint
`recommendation by the parties and the probation officer to not impose custody in this case. He
`
`1
`MARK MANOOGIAN SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 501 Filed 09/26/22 PageID.7439 Page 2 of 8
`
`requests, as well, that the Court not impose a period of probation. He makes his request on the basis
`that for his entire life, Mr. Manoogian has been a hardworking, law-abiding, and honest member of
`society. He is a loving, kind, caring and devoted husband, father, son, and brother. He recognizes that
`his failure to speak up and act, even in the face of clear directives from his superiors, was wrong. This
`decision will haunt him forever. He is truly remorseful and fully accepts responsibility for his actions
`in this matter.
`Mr. Manoogian respectfully requests that the Court not impose a period of probation on the
`basis that this federal investigation and prosecution has hung and weighed heavily on his mind for
`seven years. For the past five years, he has been under pre-trial supervision without incident. During
`this time, his family life has been severely disrupted – Mark has not spent one day with his wife and
`two young boys, Max and Theo, without the stress and uncertainty of being under criminal indictment.
`This case has taken an immense toll on Mark’s physical, emotional, and mental well-being. This
`misdemeanor conviction has also cost him his job and his career, and has had a negative effect on his
`ability to pursue future job opportunities.
`Mr. Manoogian recognizes that the Court has broad discretion in determining an appropriate
`sentence. Although Mark has agreed to pay a fine, he respectfully requests that the Court consider the
`totality of the facts and circumstances in determining whether or not a fine should be imposed,
`including the fact that there are no definable victims or financial losses in this case (the loss in this
`case is based upon the amount of money Adconion paid Daniel Dye for the IP netblocks.) As
`discussed below, Mr. Manoogian believes that a sentence of 100 hours of community service with no
`supervised release or probation is “no greater punishment than necessary to serve the sentencing
`goals” and will allow him and his family the chance to put this unfortunate and dark chapter behind
`them, and live happy and productive lives.
`II.
`Background and Character of Mark Manoogian
`Mark is a 39-year-old resident of Carlsbad, California. He is a dedicated and caring family
`man with no prior criminal history. He was born and raised in North Attleboro, Massachusetts. He
`grew up in a household with two loving parents, David and Judy Manoogian (married for 45 years),
`older brother Matthew (a federal law enforcement agent), and younger sister, Alexandra. Mark and
`
`2
`MARK MANOOGIAN SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 501 Filed 09/26/22 PageID.7440 Page 3 of 8
`
`his family lived down the road from his maternal and paternal grandparents, who were important
`positive role models in his life. His parents instilled in their children the values of love of family,
`humility, education, and hard work. Mark remains incredibly close with his parents, siblings, and
`members of his extended family to this day.
`Mark was an accomplished high school student-athlete who lettered in four varsity sports.
`Mark’s brother remembers him as a “talented athlete who was the ultimate teammate and friend.” See
`attached letter of Mr. Matthew Manoogian. Although Mark achieved numerous citizenship, athletic,
`and academic accomplishments, his father specifically highlights his son’s compassion and empathy.
`See attached letter of Mr. David Manoogian. He states in his letter to the Court that Mark was the
`type of kid that would come to the aid of students who were being bullied.
`After high school, Mark attended Tulane University on an academic scholarship. After
`graduation from college, Mark followed in his father’s footsteps and became a lawyer, graduating
`from New England Law School in 2008. Instead of practicing law, however, Mark and a law school
`classmate started a business developing a website that helped consumers make purchasing decisions.
`In 2009, Mark met his future wife, Nicole (Niki). In 2011, Niki was offered a job in San Diego
`that would bring her closer to her family in California. Mark dropped everything he was doing and
`moved across the country to be with Niki. The couple were married shortly thereafter and have been
`blessed with two wonderful boys, Max (5) and Theo (3).
`Mark is a dedicated and devoted husband as well as loving father. Recently, Max was
`diagnosed with autism which requires intensive therapy with specialists for approximately 15-20
`hours per week. This diagnosis occurred in the months immediately leading up to the trial in this case.
`Max’s diagnosis shook Mark to his core and put extra emotional and mental stress on him and his
`family. Despite the mental anguish and emotional turmoil, Mark and Niki have engaged some of the
`top medical professionals in San Diego on Max’s behalf and are committed to ensuring that Max lives
`a happy, successful, and productive life.
`Mark’s love of family has been shown in a variety of other ways. For instance, his brother
`Matthew recalls that when Matthew’s son was born, Mark flew to Tucson to be with his brother and
`sister-in-law and to meet his newly born nephew. Mark spent the next several days cleaning the house
`
`3
`MARK MANOOGIAN SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 501 Filed 09/26/22 PageID.7441 Page 4 of 8
`
`and caring for the family. As Matthew states, “Mark has always been selfless with a unique ability to
`easily love those close to him unconditionally and sacrificially.” See Mr. Matthew Manoogian letter.
`III.
`Nature and Circumstances of the Offense
`Mark was hired by Adconion (now known as Amobee) in October 2011. At the time he was
`hired, Mark had no experience or prior training in the digital marketing industry. He was not a “tech
`guy” nor an “IT guy.” He accepted the job partly because he needed the paycheck to help support his
`family, but more so because he is a team-oriented person and wanted to be a part of an exciting, fast-
`growing company with a group of “twenty-something” year-old, enthusiastic, and fun employees who
`were led by a dynamic and young CEO, Kim Perell. Although Mark was hired as a Business
`Development Manager, he was a “Manager” in name only, as he did not “manage or supervise” any
`employees. His position was a relatively low-level job with the primary responsibility of negotiating
`leases for IP addresses on behalf of the company. Prior to this job, Mark had never leased or acquired
`IP addresses. He was trained by and reported to Adconion’s General Counsel, Jonathan Harrill. Mark
`was neither a company decision-maker nor part of the company’s leadership team. Every transaction
`he was involved in required Mark to obtain prior approval from Adconion’s legal counsel and/or
`finance team. With the exception of some of Adconion’s later GetAds IP netblock purchases, Mark’s
`work involved only the leasing of IP addresses.
`In December 2010, nearly a year before Mark was hired, Adconion, through Perell and other
`senior management executives, purchased IP netblocks from Daniel Dye. Dye was a Vice President
`at GetAds and an IP address broker. GetAds was a long-time client of Adconion’s and had a good
`reputation in the digital advertising business. Prior to this occasion, Adconion had never purchased
`IP addresses from Dye or anyone else. Dye told Perell and Adconion leadership that he owned the IP
`netblock and that he would sell Adconion, “IP space that you own.” Dye also represented to Adconion
`that the company would be “purchasing” the IP netblock and all of its associated rights, e.g., domain
`name, letter of authorization (LOA), etc.
`Based on Dye’s representations, Adconion purchased its first netblock from GetAds in March
`2011, approximately seven months prior to Mark being hired at Adconion. Dye orchestrated the
`entire deal: from providing the purchase and sale documents and LOAs, to coordinating with internet
`
`4
`MARK MANOOGIAN SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 501 Filed 09/26/22 PageID.7442 Page 5 of 8
`
`hosting companies to get the netblocks “announced,” making them “usable” on the internet. The
`transaction was reviewed and approved by Adconion’s and GetAds’ respective legal counsels. Mark
`had no involvement in the negotiation or approval of this purchase.
`In August 2012, Adconion purchased a second netblock from Dye and GetAds. Just like the
`first transaction, Dye spearheaded the entire process and provided an LOA directly to internet hosting
`companies without Adconion’s involvement. Adconion’s lawyers reviewed the purchase and sale
`documents and approved this transaction as well. Mark had no involvement in the negotiation or
`approval of this purchase. He was only involved with contacting, as directed, the internet hosting
`company and confirming that the hosting company could announce the IP addresses with the LOA
`that had been provided to the company by Dye. There were no red flags raised with Mark to indicate
`there was anything illegal or unethical about this transaction.
`From August 2012 to October 2013, Mark was involved in a total of eight of the transactions
`between Adconion, Dye, and GetAds. At some point, Mark believed that Dye and GetAds were likely
`not the owners of the IP netblocks they sold to Adconion and that Dye and GetAds did not have actual
`authority to use and/or sell the IP netblocks to Adconion. He later learned that Dye was procuring
`abandoned IP netblocks from defunct or dormant companies, and selling those IP netblocks to
`Adconion. In hindsight, Mark knows that his actions in helping to facilitate the announcement of the
`GetAds IP netblocks, and his failure to speak up to management after he suspected that Dye and
`GetAds were not in fact the true owners of the IP netblocks, was wrong. For this he is truly remorseful
`and he accepts responsibility.
`IV.
`Requested Sentence and Conclusion
`Based on the written plea agreement, the parties have agreed to the following advisory
`guideline calculations:
`1. Base Offense Level
`2. Amount of Loss
`3. Acceptance of Responsibility
`4. Combination of Factors
`
`
`6
`+12
`-3
`-7
`
`5
`MARK MANOOGIAN SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 501 Filed 09/26/22 PageID.7443 Page 6 of 8
`
`The parties agree that Mr. Manoogian’s Adjusted Offense Level is 8. He has no prior criminal
`history which places him in a Criminal History Category I. The Resulting Guideline Range is 0-6
`months.
`Counsel respectfully requests that the Court consider the following factors in determining
`whether a fine is appropriate in this case:
`(1) Mr. Manoogian has no prior criminal history.
`(2) As outlined above, Mr. Manoogian’s role in this offense was minimal.
`(3) Mr. Manoogian had no financial incentive nor did he receive any personal benefit, i.e., no
`acquisition bonus or increase in pay, for his involvement in facilitating the use of the
`netblocks.
`(4) There are no definable “victims” in this case who were harmed. None of the purported
`victims suffered any significant financial or monetary loss as a result of Adconion’s use of
`the netblocks. In fact, most of the purported owners were unaware that they had any interest
`at all in the netblocks until they were informed by the FBI, which occurred long after
`Adconion had stopped using the netblocks. Some of the purported owners greatly benefitted
`financially to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of Adconion’s use of
`the netblocks. In other words, had Adconion not purchased and used the netblocks, the
`purported owners would have never been aware that they still had an ownership interest in
`the netblocks and would have never been able to sell the netblocks for massive profits.
`(5) Mr. Manoogian had no role or decision-making authority in deciding what emails were sent
`by Adconion, to whom the emails were sent, or the content of the emails.
`(6) Mr. Manoogian has already paid a significant price professionally, mentally, emotionally
`and financially for his involvement in this matter. Along with the constant stress and
`pressure of being under criminal investigation since 2015, Mark has lost his career and the
`fellowship of friends that he worked with and cared for. He also suffers from depression as
`a result of this ordeal.
`(7) Finally, to add insult to injury, the government’s malicious, inaccurate and inflammatory
`statements to the press, the day after the guilty plea in this case was entered, unfairly
`
`6
`MARK MANOOGIAN SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 501 Filed 09/26/22 PageID.7444 Page 7 of 8
`
`characterize Mr. Manoogian’s role in the offense and have further damaged his professional
`reputation. The prosecutors in this case continue to attempt to portray Mark as a “spammer,”
`which the Court ruled during pre-trial hearings they were not permitted to do. However, in
`the government’s recent press release, it identifies Mr. Manoogian as a “spammer” and
`includes salacious and sensational references to pornography that this Court explicitly stated
`were neither relevant nor admissible at trial. The government intentionally included in this
`press release references to inaccurate, careless and prejudicial language that have caused
`additional emotional and professional harm to Mr. Manoogian and have affected his ability
`to obtain gainful employment.
`In conclusion, Mr. Manoogian fully accepts responsibility for his actions in this matter. As his
`brother Matthew eloquently states in his letter of support, “Mark has learned a great deal from this
`matter. He is eager to move on with renewed perspective and higher standards for himself in all facets
`of life, personally as a father, husband, protector, and role model, as a citizen and community member,
`and professionally in any future endeavors.” See Mr. Matthew Manoogian letter.
`Given the nature and circumstances of the offense and characteristics of the defendant, counsel
`submits the appropriate sentence is 100 hours of community service and a fine of no more than
`$100,000. Mr. Manoogian urges the Court to consider whether the recommended fine amount is
`harmonious with his involvement in the crime. For the reasons stated above, counsel does not believe
`that probation or supervised release is appropriate. We submit that the sentence reflects the
`seriousness of the offense, promotes respect for the law, and provides just punishment and adequate
`specific and general deterrence. Further, the sentence generally comports with the statutory goal of
`imposing a punishment that is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: September 26, 2022
`
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS,
`GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
`
`s/ Randy K. Jones
`Randy K. Jones
`Daniel J. Goodrich (Pro Hac)
`Ryan Dougherty (Pro Hac)
`Attorneys for Mark Manoogian
`7
`MARK MANOOGIAN SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 501 Filed 09/26/22 PageID.7445 Page 8 of 8
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Counsel for the Defendant certifies that the foregoing pleading has been electronically
`served on the following parties by virtue of their registration with the CM/ECF system:
`
`Melanie K. Pierson
`Assistant U.S. Attorney
`880 Front Street, Rm 6293
`San Diego, CA 92101
`melanie.pierson@usdoj.gov
`
`Sabrina Feve
`Assistant U.S. Attorney
`880 Front Street, Rm 6293
`San Diego, CA 92101
`sfeve@usa.doj.gov
`
`Candina S. Heath
`Department of Justice
`1301 New York Avenue NW, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20530
`candina.heath2@usdoj.gov
`
`s/ Randy K. Jones
`Randy K. Jones
`Attorney for Mark Manoogian
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`129991008v.1
`
`1
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`