Case ID: f-appx_404/html/0208-01.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. Vardan AGHEKYAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50442.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 22, 2010.
    Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eric Vandevelde, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Zandra Luz Lopez, Law Offices of Zandra L. Lopez, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Vardan Aghekyan, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vardan Aghekyan appeals from the below-guidelines, 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction to three counts of making a false statement to a federally-insured financial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Aghekyan contends that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment and due process rights by engaging in impermissible judicial fact-findings when calculating the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. He further contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it violates the parsimony principle by relying on judge-found facts.

Aghekyan’s contentions are foreclosed by United States v. Hickey, 580 F.3d 922, 932 (9th Cir.2009). Moreover, the record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err, and that Aghekyan’s sentence is reasonable undér the totality of the circumstances. See United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 1016-17 (9th Cir.2010); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Aghekyan’s motion requesting self-representation is denied.

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