United States of America v. Armen Karapetian

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ARMEN KARAPETIAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50357
D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00780-GHK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Armen Karapetian appeals from the 10-month sentence imposed following
his guilty-plea conviction for access device fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1029(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
MAY 18 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-50357 2
Karapetian contends that the district court erred when it applied a four-level
enhancement because the offense involved 50 or more victims. See U.S.S.G.
§ 2B1.1(b)(2)(B). The district court did not err because both the financial
institutions and the account holders were victims as defined by the Sentencing
Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.1 & 4(E); see also United States v. Pham,
545 F.3d 712, 717 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[I]t is not impermissible double counting to
consider both [the banks and the individual account holders] as victims even if
their losses are ultimately traceable to the same fraudulently obtained funds.”).
Karapetian also contends that the district court procedurally erred when it
applied a four-level enhancement based on the amount of loss. See U.S.S.G.
§ 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(F)(i). Karapetian specifically contends that the district court
failed to address the parties’ arguments regarding the loss amount and treated the
Guidelines as mandatory. The record reflects that the district court adequately
addressed the parties’ arguments, treated the Guidelines as advisory, and did not
otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc).
Karapetian’s “motion to request a calendar date” is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --