United States of America v. ROSHANAK KHADEM, AKA Roxanne Khadem, AKA Roxy Khadem

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROSHANAK KHADEM, AKA Roxanne
Khadem, AKA Roxy Khadem,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-50245
D.C. No.
2:18-cr-00288-SVW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON, HURWITZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Roshanak Khadem challenges her sentence for conspiracy to commit
healthcare fraud. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
here.1 We affirm.
Khadem did not object to her sentence below but now argues that the
sentencing judge failed to “adequately explain” it. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). “Where a procedural sentencing error is raised for the first time on
appeal, it is reviewed for plain error.” United States v. Rangel, 697 F.3d 795, 800
(9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). The sentencing judge’s explanation of
Khadem’s sentence was not plainly erroneous, particularly given that the
sentence’s one-month upward departure from the Guidelines range was “minor.”
Gall, 552 U.S. at 50 (“[A] major departure [from the Guidelines range] should be
supported by a more significant justification than a minor one.”). The sentencing
judge “set forth enough” to show that he “considered the parties’ arguments and
ha[d] a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.”
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007) (citation omitted). He sentenced
Khadem after a two-day sentencing hearing, explained the variance between the
Guidelines range and the sentence, and referenced Khadem’s offense, history, and
characteristics.
Despite this adequate justification, Khadem contends that the sentencing
1 Khadem’s Motion to Strike Government’s Answering Brief, filed May 11, 2023,
is DENIED. Khadem has made no showing that the government violated Federal
Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 or its obligations under the plea agreement by
citing the Presentence Investigation Report in its brief.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
judge did not explain the components of her sentence. To the extent that this
argument is a disguised attempt to challenge the sentencing judge’s calculation of
the Guidelines range, it fails. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel agreed
that the Guidelines range was calculated correctly given the sentencing judge’s
findings. On appeal, Khadem alleges that the sentencing judge never made those
findings. The record belies this assertion. The sentencing judge determined
Khadem’s criminal history category, the loss amount, and the applicability of the
leadership-role enhancement and did not plainly err in doing so.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --