N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff - Appe lle e , v. KAVEH VAHEDI,

De fe nda nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50629

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00380-DDP-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff - Appe lle e , v. KAVEH VAHEDI,

De fe nda nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50631

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-01132-DDP-1

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia De a n D. Pre ge rson, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

Se pte m be r 2, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, FISHER

and B YB E E , C irc u it Judge s. 

# FIL ED OCT 06 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* T his disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

n d is not pre c e d e nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Kave h Va he di a ppe a ls his se nte nc e of 216 m onths in prison following his guilty ple a in fe de ra l distric t c ourt to ba nk fra ud, wire fra

ud, c onspira c y

to c om m it wire fra ud a nd m aking fa lse sta

te m e nts to a

fe de ra l ly insure d ba nk. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291 a nd 18 U.S.C . § 3742(a), and we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny i ng Va he di’ s re que s t for a

c o ntinua nc e to re spond to a vic tim s’ se nte n c ing m e m o randum file d six da y s be fore se nte nc ing. To obtai n a re v e rsa l, a

p pe lla nt m ust de m o nstra

te “ at a
m inim um tha t he ha s suffe re d pre

judic e a s a

re sult of thede n ia l of his re que st.” Unite d State s v . Zamora-He rnande

z , 222 F.3d 1046, 1049 (9th C ir. 2000) (quoting Unite d State s v . Fly nt , 756 F.2d 1352, 1359 (9th C ir. 1985)). Va he di ha s not shown thedistric t c o urt re lie d on the m e m o ra ndum , or tha

t he wa s pre

judic e d by

it. The c ourt wa s c le a

r that ha rm to the vic tim s wa s the dom ina nt fa c tor in se nte nc ing,
and the m e m orandum

provide d no ne winsight in tha t re ga rd. Any ne w inform at ion in them e m orandum wa s im m at e ria l to these nte nc e . 1

1 W e ne e d not a ddre ss the othe r Fly nt fa c t ors give n the la c k of pre judic e . Se e Unite d State

s v . Riv e ra-Gue rre ro , 426 F.3d 1130, 1142 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ Unlike the othe r Fly nt fa c tors, pre judic e must

be shown by

the pa rty se e king the c ontinua nc e .” ). Substa

ntia l inc onve nie nc e to the vic tim s a sse m b le d at the se nte nc ing he aring m ay

inde pe n de ntly

justify the de nia l , but we ne e d not re a c h tha t issue
. 22. The distric t c ourt a de quate l y “ ve rif[ie d] tha

t the de fe nda

nt a nd the de fe nda nt’ s attorne y

ha [d] re a d a

nd disc usse d the pre se nte nc e re p ort a nd a ny a dde ndum

to the re p ort.” Se e Fe d. R . C rim . P. 32(i)(1)(A). A se nte nc ing judge
m ay satisfy R ule 32(i)(1)(A) by

“ re a sona bly re l[y ing] on e vide nc e indic ating tha t a de fe nda nt ha s re a d

the pre se nte nc e re p ort a

nd disc usse d it with c ounse l.” Unite d State s v . Solte ro , 510 F.3d 858, 863 (9th C ir. 2007). W he n de fe nse c ounse l wa s a ske d by the c o urt whe the r he ha d pre pa re d his c lie nt for the he aring by “ re vie wing
a ll of theim

porta nt doc um e nts tha

t we ’ ve disc usse d,” inc luding thepre se nte nc e re port, he re pre se nt e d tha t he ha d. The c ourt’ s re a sona ble re lia nc e on this
re pre se ntation, undispute d by Vahe di, wa s suffic ie nt to m e e t the re quire m e nts of R ule 32(i)(1)(A). Se e Unite d State s v . Le w is , 880 F.2d 243, 245-46 (9th C ir. 1989), abrogate d on othe r grounds by Lozada v . De e ds , 964 F.2d 956 (9th C ir. 1992). 3. The distric t c ourt c om m itte d no proc e dura l e rror in se nte nc ing Va h e di to
a te rm o f im

prisonm e nt signific antly highe r tha n the guide l ine s ra

n ge and the gove rnm e nt’ s re c om

m e ndat ion. First, the c ourt prope rly

c onside re d the se nte nc ing fa c tors unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a ). Although the

c ourt did not e xplic itly

and dire c tly

a ddre ss e a c h fa c tor,

“ [t] he distric t c ourt ne e d not tic k off e a c h of the § 3553(a ) fa c tors to show tha t it 3ha s c onside re d the m .” Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th C i r. 2008) (e n ba nc ). The c ourt spe c ific a l ly sta te d it wa s c onside ring the § 3553(a ) fa c tors be fore it a

nnounc e d the se nte nc e and e xpla ine d whic h fa c tors it c onside re d m ost im porta nt to this c a se . Se c ond, the c ourt a de quate ly e xpla i ne d

the se nte nc e . The c ourt
a c knowle dge d the guide line s ra nge , sa id it ha d c onside re d “ a whole range of
se nte nc e s,” the n justifie d its substa ntia l va rianc e from

the guide line s ra

nge ba se d on the signific ant ha

rm to vic t i m s, the ne e d to prote c t the c om m unity and the de fe nda nt’ s pe rc e ive d

la c k of re m orse . “ The se nte nc ing judgeshould se t forth
e nough to sa

tisfy t he a ppe lla te c ourt tha

t he ha s c onside re d the pa rtie s’ argum e nts
and ha s a re a sone d ba sis for e xe rc ising his own le ga l de c isionm aking a uthority .” Rita v . Unite d State

s , 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). The c ourt did so here . Fina lly , the distric t c ourt re m a ine d c ogniz a nt of the Se nte nc ing Guide line s throughout sente nc i ng. The c ourt be ga n the se nte nc i ng he a

ring by c a lc ulating the guide l ine s ra

nge , late r c ha lle nge d the gove rnm e nt’ s c o nte ntion tha t the guide line s range wa s suffic ie nt punishme nt a n d the n e xpre ssly

sta te d it wa s c onside ring the guide l ine s whe n it a

nnounc e d the se nte nc e . 4. Va he di’ s 216-m onth se nte nc e is not substa ntive ly unre a sona

ble . “ For a non-Guide l ine s se nte nc e , we are to ‘ give due de fe re n c e to the distric t c ourt’ s 4de c ision tha

t the § 3553(a ) fa c tors, on a whole , justify

the e xte nt of the va

rianc e .’ ” C arty , 520 F.3d a

t 993 (quoting Gall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). W e a c k nowle dge tha

t the se nte nc e is se ve re . In light of the life -de stroy ing ha

rm Vahe di inflic te d

on num e rous vic tim s a

nd his la c k of re m orse a s the distric t c ourt found, howe ve r, the c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in sente nc ing Va he di to 18 y e ars in prison. 5. The m otion by

26 vic t im s a

n d c o unse l for le ave to file an am ic us c uria e brie f, file d De c e m

be r 12, 2014, is DE NIE D
. AFFIRM E D.

5