Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ashot MANUKYAN, aka Ashot Gagik Manukian, "Yurik", Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sousana Ounousian, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-09
Citations: 122 F. App'x 886
Docket Number: Nos. 02-50464, 02-50573
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ashot MANUKYAN, aka Ashot Gagik Manukian, “Yurik”, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sousana Ounousian, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and WEINER, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 122
Pages: 886–887

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ashot MANUKYAN, aka Ashot Gagik Manukian, “Yurik”, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sousana Ounousian, Defendant—Appellant.
Nos. 02-50464, 02-50573.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Jan. 10, 2005.
Decided Feb. 9, 2005.
James Aquilina, Esq, USLA — Office of The U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Karen L. Landau, Esq., Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellant Ashot Manukyan.
Wayne R. Young, Esq., Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-Appellant Sousana Ounousian.
Before: REINHARDT and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and WEINER, District Judge.
The Honorable Charles R. Weiner, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In No. 02-50464:
Ashot Manukyan raises a Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) challenge to the sentence imposed following his guilty plea. We remand the sentence for reconsideration in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
In No. 02-50573:
Sousana Ounousian appeals her jury trial conviction and raises a Blakely challenge to her sentence.
The evidence of the kidnaping conspiracy was "inextricably intertwined" with the extortion conspiracy and thus was admissible. Evidence of the kidnaping enabled the government to offer a coherent and comprehensible story regarding the extortion. Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion for the district judge to have admitted it.
We remand the sentence for reconsideration in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
CONVICTION AFFIRMED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Circuit Rule 36-3.