United States of America v. Sami Arshak Yanikian

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
SAMI ARSHAK YANIKIAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50543
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00613-SJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2013**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Sami Arshak Yanikian appeals from the district court’s order affirming the
6-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for introduction of an
unapproved new drug in interstate commerce, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(d),
FILED
JAN 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-50543 2
355(a), and 333(a)(1); and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2(b).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Yanikian contends that the magistrate judge procedurally erred by: (1)
failing to explain the sentence adequately; (2) imposing a custodial sentence
without properly considering his mental impairment; and (3) failing to address his
mitigating arguments regarding his mental health impairment. We review for plain
error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.
2010), and find none. The magistrate judge considered Yanikian’s mitigating
arguments and sufficiently explained the sentence.
Yanikian also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in
light of his mental health issues. The magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion
in imposing Yanikian’s within-Guidelines sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
the need to deter and to protect the public. See id.
Yanikian finally contends that the magistrate judge erred by imposing a
condition of supervised release requiring him to provide the probation officer with
access to the business records, client lists, and other records pertaining to any
business owned or co-owned by Yanikian. We review this contention for plain

-- 2 of 3 --

11-50543 3
error, see United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 927 (9th Cir. 2008), and find
none. The challenged condition is reasonably related to the circumstances of
Yanikian’s conviction and to the goals of deterrence and protection of the public.
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (2) and 3583(d); Daniels, 541 F.3d at 924.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --