United States v. Guyumdzhyan , 393 F. App'x 478 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 07-50431
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. CR-04-01052-DDP
v.
MEMORANDUM *
TIGRAN GUYUMDZHYAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 10, 2010 **
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Tigran Guyumdzhyan appeals from certain specified conditions of
supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon
in possession of a firearm and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2and 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Guyumdzhyan contends that various financial conditions of his supervised
release including requiring him to disclose financial information as directed by the
probation officer, prohibiting him from applying for a loan, opening a line of
credit, or conveying significant assets without approval of the probation officer,
and paying his drug and alcohol treatment costs as directed by the probation officer
are not within the district court’s statutory discretion. The district court did not
plainly err in imposing these conditions because they reflect Guyumdzhyan’s
offense, history and characteristics, serve the goals of deterrence, protection of the
public, and rehabilitation, and are no greater than necessary. See 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3553(a), 3583(d); United States v. Garcia, 522 F.3d 855, 862 (9th Cir. 2008).
Guyumdzhyan also contends that these financial conditions result in an
impermissible delegation of the court’s authority to the probation officer. The
district court did not plainly err by impermissible delegation. See United States v.
Soltero, 510 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam); United States v. Stephens,
424 F.3d 876, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.
2 07-50431