United States of America v. Lianna Ovsepian, a.k.a. Lili

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LIANNA OVSEPIAN, a.k.a. Lili,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-50399
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-01075-SJO-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 8, 2016**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Lianna Ovsepian appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
her guilty-plea conviction and 96-month sentence for conspiracy to commit health
care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and her guilty-plea conviction and
concurrent 60-month sentence for conspiracy to possess at least five identification
FILED
JUN 10 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

documents and authentication features, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(f).
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Ovsepian’s counsel has
filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to
withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Ovsepian the opportunity to file
a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has
been filed.
Ovsepian waived her right to appeal her conviction, with the exception of an
appeal based on a claim that her plea was involuntary. She also waived the right to
appeal her sentence, although she retained the right to appeal some conditions of
supervised release and retained the right to appeal the restitution order. Our
independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80
(1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief regarding the voluntariness of the
guilty pleas, the terms and conditions of supervised release, or the restitution order.
We therefore affirm as to those issues. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in
light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-
88 (9th Cir. 2009).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2

-- 2 of 2 --