Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0603-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armen KARAPETIAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50857.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 18, 2012.
    Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Jay Howard Robinson, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ashwini Shrikrishna Mate, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Armen Karapetian appeals from the 10-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for access device fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Karapetian contends that the district court erred when it applied a four-level enhancement because the offense involved 50 or more victims. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(B). The district court did not err because both the financial institutions and the account holders were victims as defined by the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n. 1 & 4(E); see also United States v. Pham, 545 F.3d 712, 717 (9th Cir.2008) (“[I]t is not impermissible double counting to consider both [the banks and the individual account holders] as victims even if their losses are ultimately traceable to the same fraudulently obtained funds.”).

Karapetian also contends that the district court procedurally erred when it applied a four-level enhancement based on the amount of loss. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n. 3(F)(i). Karapetian specifically contends that the district court failed to address the parties’ arguments regarding the loss amount and treated the Guidelines as mandatory. The record reflects that the district court adequately addressed the parties’ arguments, treated the Guidelines as advisory, and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Karapetian’s “motion to request a calendar date” is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.