FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 16 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-30012
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00111-MJP
v.
MEMORANDUM *
EDWARD ASATOORIANS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Edward Asatoorians appeals from the 41-month sentence imposed following
his jury-trial conviction for six counts of bank fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1344. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
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).
Asatoorians contends that the district court erred in applying a four-level
leadership role enhancement under Guidelines section 3B1.1(a). This contention
fails because the record reflects that Asatoorians exercised considerable decision
making authority in the scheme and exerted control or authority over at least one of
the other participants in the bank fraud. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a); United States v.
Garcia, 497 F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir. 2007).
Asatoorians also suggests that the district court procedurally erred by failing
to (1) adequately explain its sentence and address his statutory sentencing
arguments; (2) treat the Guidelines as advisory; (3) consider the statutory
sentencing factors, and (4) use the Guidelines range as a starting point without
improperly presuming the reasonableness of a within-Guidelines sentence. These
arguments fail because the record makes clear that the court considered the parties’
arguments closely and, aware of its obligations under section 3553(a), selected a
high-end sentence out of a particular concern for Asatoorians’s demonstrated
history of recidivism. The court’s explanation was sufficient to permit meaningful
appellate review of the sentence, and the court did not otherwise procedurally err.
See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-30012