United States of America v. Raffi Arshak Donoyan, a.k.a. Hamo Arakina, a.k.a. Sam Arsenian, a.k.a. Rafael…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAFFI ARSHAK DONOYAN, a.k.a.
Hamo Arakina, a.k.a. Sam Arsenian, a.k.a.
Rafael Donovan, a.k.a. Ralph Donovan,
a.k.a. Rasmik Gasparian, a.k.a. Seal A,
Defendant - Appellant.
Nos. 14-50001
14-50002
D.C. Nos. 2:07-cr-00249-ABC
2:07-cr-00219-ABC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Raffi Arshak Donoyan appeals from the
district court’s judgments and challenges the revocation of supervised release. We
FILED
DEC 16 2014
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 --

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Donoyan contends that the district court abused its discretion by revoking
his supervised release based on the finding that he violated Central District of
California General Order 01-05. This contention is unpersuasive. General Order
01-05 required Donoyan to maintain “one personal checking account” and to
disclose records of “all other bank accounts, including any business accounts.”
The record amply supports the district court’s conclusion that Donoyan’s Bank of
America account was a business account that he was required to report. See 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. King, 608 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Donoyan’s
supervised release based on his failure to disclose the account. See United States v.
Perez, 526 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir. 2008). Further, we decline to require the
district court to apply the rule of lenity. See United States v. Bland, 961 F.2d 123,
128 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The rule of lenity does not permit us to create an ambiguity
where none exists.”).
AFFIRMED.
14-50001 & 14-50002 2

-- 2 of 2 --