Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MIKE MIKAELIAN, a.k.a. Mikke, a.k.a. Nikke, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM*
Mike Mikaelian appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 144-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute OxyContin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C) and 846; and transactional money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Mikaelian contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it created an unwarranted sentencing disparity with two of his codefendants and because it allegedly does not adequately take into account his post-offense rehabilitation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Mikaelian's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Mikaelian and his co-defendants are not similarly situated, see United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1121 (9th Cir. 2009), and the below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Mikaelian's role in the offense and the need for deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Moreover, contrary to Mikaelian's contention, the record reflects that the district court fully considered his mitigating arguments in its determination to grant a six-level downward variance. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 921-22 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 15-50416
Decided: February 21, 2017
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)