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. AR TAK OVSEPIAN,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-50338

D.C . No. 2:11-c r-01075-SJO-6
M EM O R ANDUM *

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 S. Jam e s Ote ro, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 6, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KOR M AN, ** Distric t Judge
. Artak Ovse pia

n (“ Ovse pia

n” ) a ppe a ls his se nte n c e and re s titution order following his c onvic t ion on c ha rge s re lating to a

he a l th c a re fra u d sc he m e . W e 

# FIL ED
JAN 09 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm an, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.a ffirm

in pa rt a nd re ve rse in pa

rt, va c a te the se nte nc e , a

nd re m and for re se nte nc ing. The re stitution orde

r is a ffirm e d. I. Aggr avate d Ide ntity T he ft and Double Counting Ovse pia n a rgue s tha t his c onse c utive se nte nc e for a ggravate d ide n t ity the ft unde r 18 U.S.C . § 1028A ba rs two e nha

nc e m e nts a s im

pe rm issibledouble
c ounting be c a

use the y are ba s e d on the unla

w ful use of a

m e ans of ide ntific a tion. Se e U .S.S.G. § 2B 1.6 c m t. n.2. First, we find tha

t the distric t c ourt did not enga ge in im pe rm issibledouble
c ounting in a

pply i ng a two-le ve l e nha

nc e m e nt for num

be r of vic tim s unde r U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1(b)(2). The num be r-of-vic tim s e nha

n c e m e n t se rve s a

purpose distinc t from

punishing ide

ntity the ft: punishing offe

nde rs ba se d on the num

be r of vic t im s. Se e Unite d State

s v . Holt , 510 F.3d 1007, 1011–12 (9th C ir. 2007); se e also Unite d State

s v . Smith , 751 F.3d 107, 121 (3d C ir. 2014) (“ Quite pla inly , the vic t im e nha nc e m e nt unde r § 2B 1.1(b)(2) is not a n e nha nc e m e nt ba se d on the use of
a ‘ m e ans of ide ntific ation’ ; it is a n e nha nc e m e nt ba se d on the num be r of vic tim s.” ). Se c ond, the re c ord doe s not show, howeve r, why the distric t c ourt a

p plie d a
se nte nc e e nha

nc e m e nt for unla

wful use or posse ssion of a n a uthe n tic ation fe a ture unde r U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1(b)(11)(A)(ii). W e the re fore va c a te the se nte nc e and
re m and for re se nte nc i ng so the distric t c ourt c an e xpla in why it a p plie d this
2e nha

nc e m e nt a

nd a d dre s s whe t

he r suc h a

pplic a tion c onstitute d im

pe rm i ssible double c o unting. The re is one issue tha

t doe s not re late to doublec o unting tha t we a d d re ss he re . Pursua

nt to § 1028A(c )(5), a ggravate d ide n tity the ft m ay

be pre dic a te d on a fe lony viola tion of “ a ny provision c onta ine d

in c ha pte r 63 (re l a ting to m a il, ba nk,
and wire fra

ud).” Ovse pia

n argue s tha

t this pa re n the tic a l ha s the e ffe c t of lim iting pre d ic a te fe lonie s unde r C ha pte r 63 to m a il, ba

nk, a nd wire fra

ud, a nd e xc lude s othe r fraud offe nse s pre sc ribe d in tha t c h a pte r, inc l uding c onspira c y to c om m it he a lth c are fraud—

the offe nse on whic h he wa s c onvic te d. W e have he ld, howe ve r, that C ongre ss did not inte

n d suc h pa

re nthe tic a l s “ be a c c orde d a lim iting e ffe c t
ra the r tha n a de sc riptive one .” U

nite d State

s v . Harre ll , 637 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th C ir. 2011). Inste a d, the pa re nthe tic a l “ m e re ly

provide s a

short-ha nd de sc ription of what se ve ra l of the c i te d se c tions prim arily c ove r.” Id. a t 1011 (c i tation om itte d);
se e a lso Unite d State

s v . Abdur-Rahman , 708 F.3d 98, 101–02 (2d C ir. 2013). II. Sophistic ate d M e ans E nhanc e m e nt The distric t c ourt did not err in a pply i ng the sophistic a te d m e ans
e nha nc e m e nt. W e re

je c t at the thre shold theargum e nt tha t the Se n t e nc i ng Guide line s provision for a sophistic a te d m e ans e nha nc e m e nt is unc onstitutiona lly
va gue . Outside the First Am e ndm e nt c onte xt, the void-for-va gue ne ss doc trine
3re quire s a

finding of va gue ne ss a s a pplie d to the fa c ts of the insta nt c a s e . C av itt v
. C ulle n , 728 F.3d 1000, 1005 (9th C ir. 2013). The fa c ts of the c o nspira c y in this
c a se showe d tha

t it wa s sophistic a te d, a s it inc lude d use of fake and re a l doc tors,
c ove rt tra nsporta tion, a nd othe r m e ans of ope ra tion. W e re je c t Ovse pia

n’ s a rgum e nt tha

t this e nha

nc e m e nt wa s subse que n tly
am e nde d in a way

tha t would ha

ve m a de it ina

pplic a ble be c a use the am e ndm e nt Ovse pia n re lie s on is substa

ntive ra the r tha

n c la rify ing, a n d substa ntive
am e ndm e nts do not a

pply re troa c tive ly

unle ss the y

are “ spe c ific a l ly

re fe re nc e d in U.S.S.G.§ 1B 1.10.” Unite d State s v . Diaz-C

a rde nas , 351 F.3d 404, 409 (9th C ir. 2003). Ne ve rthe l e ss, a s the Unite d State s Attorne y c onc e de s, the distric t c ourt would ha ve the disc re tion on re m and to c onside r the am e nde d e nha n c e m e n t in fa shioning a

n a ppropria te se nte nc e . S

e e Unite d State

s v . Tay lor , 648 F.3d 417, 425 n.3 (6th C ir. 2011) (c olle c ting c a se s). III. Ac c e ptanc e of Re sponsibilityAdjustm e nt W e re je c t Ovse pia

n’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the distric t c ourt did not make suffic ie nt fa c t ua l findings when it de c line d to a pply an a djustm e nt for a c c e pta nc e of
re sponsibility . The re wa s no fa c tua l dispute with the pre se nte nc e inve stiga t ion
re port (“ PSR ” ) re quiring a n e xplic it re solution by

the distric t c ourt. C

f

. Unite d State s v . C arte r , 219 F.3d 863, 866–68 (9th C ir. 2000) (e rror whe re distric t c ourt
4did not re solve obje c tions to fa c ts in thePSR ne c e ssa ry to find tha

t de fe nda nt wa s
a m ana ge r or supe rvisor, a s re quire d for e nha nc e m e nt). M ore ove r, our re vie w of the re c ord pe rsua de s us tha t the distric t c ourt did not errone ously de c line to a

pply the a djustm e nt for a c c e pta n c e of re sponsibility
. IV . A pprendi Claim The distric t c ourt did not err unde r Appre n di v . N e w J e rse y , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), in orde ring re stitution without a jury c a lc ulation. W e pre viously he ld in Unite d State s v . Gre e n that A

ppre ndi doe s not a ffe c t re s titution. 722 F.3d 1146, 1149–1151 (9th C ir. 2013). R e c e nt Supre m e C ourt a uthority doe s not, a s Ovse pia

n
argue s , unde rc ut the ra tiona le s in Gre e n . First, P aroline v . Unite d State s , 134 S. C t. 1710, 1726 (2014), doe s not hold that re s titution is sole ly

punitiveand so doe s not unde rm i ne Gre e n ’ s ra t iona le tha t the n a ture of re stitution m a y som e tim e s be punitive , or re m e dia l , or both. Gre e n , 722 F.3d a

t 1150; se e also United State s v . Alv are

z , 835 F.3d 1180, 1185 (9th C ir. 2016). Se c o nd, Gre e n re lie d on the fa c t tha t re stitution doe s not im

plic a te a sta tutory m a xim um . Id. Thus, whilere stitution a rgua b ly se rve s to a ggravate a
c rim ina l se n te nc e , se e A lle y ne v . Unite d State

s , 133 S. C t. 2151, 2162–63 (2013), it doe s not im

plic a te a sta tutory m inim um like in Alle

y ne . On the whole , the re is not
e nough support to c onc lude that inte rve ning a uthority ha s suffic ie ntly

unde rc ut
5Gre e n ’ s rationa le s to be “ c le arly irre c onc ila

ble ” for this pa

ne l to ove rrule c irc uit pre c e de nt. Mille r

v . Gammie , 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th C i r. 2003) (e n ba nc ); U nite d State s v . Ey raud, 809 F.3d 462, 471 (9th C ir. 2015) (“ [ Gre e n ] fore c lose s c ounse l’ s . . . invoc a tion of [Paroline ] . . . . W e he ld in Gre e n that [ A ppre ndi ] doe s not a

pply to re stitution orde

rs, a nd Paroline

doe s not inva lida

te tha t holding.” ). V . Conc lusion W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt on a ll issue s e xc e pt for whe the r its a pplic a tion of
a se n te nc e e nha

nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1(b)(11)(A)(ii) c onstitute d im pe rm issibledouble c ounting. On this issue , we va c a te and re m and. The
re stitution orde

r is a ffirm e d. AFFIRM E D in pa

rt, RE V E RSE D in pa

rt, V ACAT E D , a

nd R E M ANDE D
.

6