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. R AFAEL PAR SADANYAN, AKA R a ffi, AKA R a ffo, De fe nda

n t-Appe l la

nt. Nos. 14-50423

15-50004 D.C . No. 2:11-c r-00072-R GK-35
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. ARM AN SHAR OPETR OSIAN, AKA Dz i, AKA Horse ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 14-50434

D.C . No. 2:11-c r-00072-R GK-4 

# FIL ED
JUN 21 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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.UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. M HER DAR B INYAN, AKA C a

pone , AKA C a ps, AKA Holly

wood M ike , AKA Little M ike , AKA M ah e r, AKA M ike ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. Nos. 14-50516

15-50173 D.C . No. 2:11-c r-00072-R GK-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 R . Ga ry Kla usne r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 17, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , * IKUTA, C irc uit Judge , and GETTLEM AN, *** Distric t Judge
. R a fa e l Pa rsa da ny an, Arm an Sha

rope trosia n, a nd M he r Darbiny a

n a ppe a l the i r c o nvic tions. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291.

** This c a se wa s subm itte d to a pa ne l tha t inc lude d Judge Koz inski, who re tire d. Following Judge K o z inski’ s re tire m e nt, C hie f Judge Thom a s wa s drawn by lot to repla c e Judge Koz inski. Ninth C irc uit Ge ne ra l Orde r 3.2.h. C hie f Judge Thom a s ha s re a d the brie fs, re vie we d the re c o rd, a nd liste ne d to theora l argum e n t.

*** The Honora

ble R obe rt W . Ge ttle m an, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the N orthe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa tion. 2An Alle n c ha rge is im pe rm issibly

c oe rc ive whe n holdout jurors c ould inte rpre t the c ha

rge “ a s dire c t e d spe c ific a l ly at the m . ” Unite d State

s v . W illiams , 547 F.3d 1187, 1205 (9th C ir. 2008) (quoting Unite d State s v . Ajiboy e , 961 F.2d 892, 894 (9th C ir. 1992)). He re , the holdout juror who se nt a signe d note to the distric t c o urt a sking to be e xc u se d c ould re a sona

bly fe e l ta rge te d by the distric t
c ourt’ s “ ‘ ne utra l form ’ of the Alle n c ha rge .” Id. (quoting Unite d State s v . Ste e le , 298 F.3d 906, 911 (9th C ir. 2002)). Although the distric t c ourt c ould not re a d the signa ture on the note and so did not ac tua lly know the holdout juror’ s ide ntity , this fa c t wa s not c onve y e d to thejury ; the re fore , it did not m itiga te the Alle n c h arge ’ s
c oe rc ive e ffe c t on theholdout juror. Nor a re we aware of a

ny ba s is for holding that the c oe rc ive e ffe c t of a

n Alle n c ha

rge in this c onte xt de pe nds on whe the r the holdout juror wa s voting for a c onvic tion ra

the r tha n a n a c quitta l . B e c a

use the holdout juror here se lf-ide ntifie d to thec ourt, a n d the c ourt the re a fte r ga

v e an Alle n
c ha rge , “ re ve rsa l is ne c e s sa

ry . ” W illiams , 547 F.3d a

t 1207 (quoting Ajiboy e , 961 F.2d at 894); Unite d S

t ate s v . Sae -C

hua , 725 F.2d 530, 531–32 (9th C ir. 1984). Give n our de c ision, wene e d not— a nd do not—

re a c h a ny othe r issue s
argue d by the pa rtie s. RE V E RSE D.

3