United States v. Mike Mikaelian , 677 F. App'x 392 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50416
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00922-DDP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MIKE MIKAELIAN, a.k.a. Mikke, a.k.a.
Nikke,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Mike Mikaelian appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 144-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
conspiracy to distribute OxyContin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C) and
*
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).
846; and transactional money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a). We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Mikaelian contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because
it created an unwarranted sentencing disparity with two of his codefendants and
because it allegedly does not adequately take into account his post-offense
rehabilitation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Mikaelian’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Mikaelian and his co-defendants are not similarly situated, see United States v.
Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1121 (9th Cir. 2009), and the below-Guidelines sentence is
substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and
the totality of the circumstances, including Mikaelian’s role in the offense and the
need for deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Moreover, contrary to Mikaelian’s
contention, the record reflects that the district court fully considered his mitigating
arguments in its determination to grant a six-level downward variance. See United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 921-22 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-50416