NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 APPEALS
2 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, the district court expressly 

disclaimed any reliance on rehabilitation. Although the court expressed its hope 

that Malik receives the help he needs while in custody, 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 disparity it might create, “a truly 

meaningful custodial sentence” was necessary 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 substantively 
3 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, 552 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.