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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. ANDR ANIK ALOYAN, AKA Ando, AKA Andy , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50403

D.C . No. 2:11-c r-00072-PSG-27 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 Philip S. Gutierre z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 6, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KOZINSKI, W . FLETC HER , a nd GOULD, C irc uit Judge s . Andra nik Aloy an a

ppe a ls the de nia l of his m otion to suppre ss e vide nc e ga ine d in a

se arc h of his girlfriend’ s a pa rtm e nt, a nd he a lso a

ppe a ls his c onvic tions for pa rtic ipation in a

R IC O c o nspira c y , atte m

pte d ba nk fra ud, a ggrav ate d

ide ntity 

# FIL ED JUN 09 2016 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.the ft, posse ssion of fifte e n or m ore una uthoriz e d a c c e s s de vic e s, a nd posse s sion of a fire arm by

a c onvic te d fe lon. Aloy an furthe r a ppe a ls his se nte nc e . W e a ffirm . 1. The distric t c ourt did not c le a rly e rr in de te rm ining tha

t, unde r the tota lity of the c irc um s ta

nc e s , Aloy an’ s girlfrie nd volunta rily c onse n t e d to the offic e rs’ e ntry . Se e Unite d State s v . C ormie r , 220 F.3d 1103, 1112 (9th C i r. 2000). It is signific ant tha

t offic e rs a ske d he r if the y c ould e nte r the a

pa rtm e nt, a nd she ve rba l ly gave pe rm ission be fore fully ope ning thedoor. The polic e did not use an

“ unc o nstitutiona

l ruse ” to obta in e ntry

be c a use the y a c c urate l y

sta te d the ir purpose for e n try : to spe ak with Aloy an. C f. Unite d State

s v . Bosse , 898 F.2d 113, 115 (9th C ir. 1990). The e vide nc e wa s suffic ie n t to de te rm ine that Aloy an’ s girlfrie nd c onse n te d, e v e n though offic e rs did not re c a ll the e xa c t words sheuse d. S e e Unite d State s v . Pe re z -Lope z , 348 F.3d 839, 845 (9th C ir. 2003). And e ve n if the offic e rs e xc e e de d the sc o p e of c onse nt by purporting to enga ge in a prote c tive swe e p into priva

t e are a s of the house , the c ontra ba nd wa s disc ove re d in pla i n vie w in a pla c e whe re polic e we re la wfully e ntitle d to be . Se e Horton v . C alifornia , 496 U.S. 128, 136–37 (1990). 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

a llowing the gove rnm e nt to pre se nt e v ide nc e of a Ja nua ry 2010 shooting in whic

h Aloy an wa s a lle ge dly involve d to provide c onte xt for the re l ationship betwe e n Aloy an a nd a 2c oc onspira

tor who te s tifie d a ga inst him . Se e Unite d State s v . Se rang , 156 F.3d 910, 915 (9th C ir. 1998). Thedistric t c ourt did not c om m it pla in e rror a ffe c ting substa ntia l rights by

a dm itting photos of fire arm s be side s the one for whic h he wa s c ha rge d. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

e x c l uding e vide nc e tha

t the fire arm

tha t Aloy an wa s c ha

rge d with posse ssing wa s inope ra b le . The a

bility to ope rate the fire a

rm wa s not re le va

nt to thec ha

rge , se e Unite d State

s v . Harris , 792 F.2d 866, 868 (9th C ir. 1986) (c iting 18 U.S.C . § 921(a )(3)), an d the gove rnm e nt did not ope

n the door to this evide nc e nor did it im p l y the gun wa s unsa fe in a

m anne r that

c a use d Aloy a

n undue pre

j udic e . 3. Whe n a

pply ing a se nte n c ing e nha

nc e m e nt for 50 or m ore vic tim s, the distric t c o urt c le a

rly e rre d in finding tha

t Aloy an’ s c rim e s a ffe c t e d 82 vic tim s be c a use he posse sse d a c c ount num be rs be longing to 82 pe ople on a USB drive . A vic t im is de fine d a s “ any

individual whose m e ans of ide ntific ation wa s use d unla wfully or without a

uthority .” U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1(b)(2) c m t. n.4(E) (2013). B ut m e re posse ssion is not use . Se e , e .g. , Baile

y v . Unite d State

s , 516 U.S. 137, 143 (1995). Aloy an did not obje c t to this finding, howe ve r, so we re vie w for pla in e rror. Exhibit 153 from

the se nte nc ing proc e e dings shows tha t Aloy an use d the a c c ount num

be rs of 28 diffe re nt pe ople who “ a c tua lly ha d m one y

m ove d a round in the i r a c c ounts or ha d a c tua l loss from the i r a c c ounts via

c he c k s writte n a ga inst 3the m

or m one y

tra nsfe rre d out via

wire .” The re c ord a lso shows tha t Aloy an use d a c c ount num

be rs to re -e n c ode 2 2 Gre e n Dot c a rds. W hile the re c ord doe s not show whe the r those a c c o unt num be rs be longe d

to 22 diffe re nt pe ople suc h tha t Aloy an’ s c rim e s would ha ve ha d e xa c tly

50 vic tim s, Aloy an ha s not produc e d e vide nc e to the c ontra

ry , so he ha s not m e t his burde n of showing pre

j udic e . Se e Unite d State s v . Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 734–35 (1993) (de fe nda nt be ars burde n of showing pre

judic e on pla in e rror). 4. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

a pply ing the sophistic ate d m e ans e nha nc e m e nt. Unite d State

s v . Augare , 800 F.3d 1173, 1174–76 (9th C ir. 2015). Aloy an’ s use of te c hnology to re -e nc ode Gre e n Dot c ards we nt a

b ove and be y o n d “ ga

rde n-va rie ty ” ide ntity

fra ud. 5. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

re je c t ing a two- or four-le ve l m inor or m inim a l role m itiga tion. “ [M ] e re ly

be ing le ss c ulpa

ble tha n one ’ s c o-pa

rtic i pa nts doe s not a

utom atic a l ly

re sult in m

inor sta tus.” Unite d State

s v . Andrus , 925 F.2d 335, 338 (9th C ir. 1991). Aloy an “ c e rta inly wa s not the m a ste rm ind, a

nd the ove ra ll sc h e m e to de fraud c ould ha v e ope rate d

without him . B ut he joine d

the c onspira c y , a

nd he pla y e d a ke y role by ” obta ining ba

nk profile s from an inside r he kne w at B ank of Am e ric a , se tting up fra udule n t onlinetra

nsfe rs,

4and de ve l oping c u stom e r profile s to useto im p e rsonate pe ople . Unite d State s v . Laurie nti , 611 F.3d 530, 552 (9th C ir. 2010). AFFIRM E D.

5