Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oganess ABOUCHIAN, aka Seal A, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-20
Citations: 235 F. App'x 459
Docket Number: No. 06-50102
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Oganess ABOUCHIAN, aka Seal A, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 459–460

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Oganess ABOUCHIAN, aka Seal A, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-50102.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 9, 2007.
Filed July 20, 2007.
George S. Cardona, Beong-Soo Kim, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
William C. Melcher, Esq., Woodland Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Oganess Abouchian appeals from his conviction and 51-month sentence for aiding and abetting bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1), 2(a), and thirty-three counts of aiding and abetting wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, 2(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Abouehian contends that because the district court sentenced him within the range recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines, the court failed to exercise its independent reasoned judgment, as required by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We disagree. The record shows that the district court properly considered the sentencing factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and concluded that a sentence within the recommended Guidelines range was appropriate. We conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir.), cert. denied — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164 L.Ed.2d 832 (2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.