NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. KEITH SHAZAD MALIK, AKA keithshazadmalik@gmail.com, AKA keithmalik@gmail.com,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 23

- 2016 D.C. No. 2:22

- cr - 00321

- MCS

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Mark C. Scarsi , District Judge , Presiding
Submitted September 17, 2024 **
Before: WARDLAW, BADE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges

. Keith Shazad Malik appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for transmitting interstate threats in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c)

. We have

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 20 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 23

- 2016

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm

. Malik first argues that the district court impermissibly extended the length of his sentence in order to promote his rehabilitation in violation of Tapia v. United
States , 564 U.S. 319 (2011). To the contrary, th e district court expressly
disclaimed any reliance on rehabilitation. Although the court expressed its hope
that Malik receive s the help he need s while in custod y, it did not impose or lengthen the sentence to promote rehabilitation. See id

. at 334 ( “ A court commits

no error by discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison

. ”). Rather, the court imposed the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, including Malik’s yearslong harassment of the victim even after a restraining order was
entered. Malik next contends that the district court did not adequately account for the
need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities

. However, the record shows that
the district court reviewed the case that Malik offered as a comparator and specifically considered his sentence disparities argument

. It acted within its discretion in concluding that , notwithstanding any disparit y it might create , “a truly meaningful custodial sentence” was ne cessary in Malik’s case to promote respect for the law, protect the community, and deter Malik from further criminal conduct

. See United States v. Marcial

- Santiago , 447 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2006)

. Third, Malik contends that the above

- Guidelines sentence is substantively3 23

- 2016

unreasonable. Though the district court varied upward substantially, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)

. Under the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, particularly the nature of the offense , the sentence is substantively
reasonable. See Gall , 55 2 U.S. at 51

. Finally, Malik is incorrect that the district court erred in calculating his Guidelines range. As he concedes, Amendment 821 had not yet gone into effect
when he was sentenced

. Thus, the court properly did not consider it. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(a) ; United States v. Ruiz

- Apolonio , 657 F.3d 907, 916 n.7 (9th Cir. 2011). Now that the amendment has been adopted , however, Malik may seek a sentence
reduction in the district court. 1 See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
AFFIRMED.

1 We express no opinion as to whether Malik is entitled to a reduction.