United States v. Arman Nshanian, 821 F.3d 1013

In 2005–2006 LeAnn Turner and Jerome Howard ran a Kansas City real-estate mortgage fraud scheme: buyers purchased homes with inflated offers and surplus loan proceeds were diverted to conspirators via fictitious management companies.
Howard recruited buyers, created false employment and income records at Infinite Link Communications, and arranged for Turner and others to alter loan/closing documents to obtain financing.
Arman Nshanian and James Nash, Jr., both former Los Angeles County deputy sheriffs, participated by buying Kansas City properties, signing loan and closing documents containing material misrepresentations, and receiving substantial cash proceeds ($122,000 for Nshanian; $200,000 for Nash).
A jury convicted both men of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and multiple counts of wire fraud; the district court sentenced each to 42 months’ imprisonment after downward variances from higher advisory guideline ranges.
On appeal Nshanian challenged sufficiency of the evidence and a two-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement for perjury; both defendants challenged the substantive reasonableness of their sentences and alleged unwarranted sentencing disparities.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict Nshanian of conspiracy/wire fraud	Nshanian: he acted in good faith and did not know documents contained misrepresentations	Government: testimony, admissions, and false loan documents support knowledge and intent	Affirmed — evidence sufficient; reasonable jury could infer knowledge/intent
Obstruction enhancement under USSG §3C1.1 for Nshanian	Nshanian: district court failed to make adequate perjury finding (willfulness, materiality)	Government: court made an independent finding that he testified untruthfully and willfully on a material matter	Affirmed — court’s finding encompassed predicates for perjury and was not clearly erroneous
Substantive reasonableness of Nshanian’s 42-month sentence; alleged disparity	Nshanian: his sentence is disparate compared to co‑conspirators (e.g., Howard/Turner) and unwarranted	Government: differences—pleas, acceptance of responsibility, obstruction, and other factors—justify variance	Affirmed — sentence was a substantial downward variance and not unreasonable
Substantive reasonableness of Nash’s 42-month sentence; alleged harshness	Nash: court gave undue weight to avoiding disparities, resulting in identical sentence despite differences	Government: offenses and conduct were similar; both obstructed and refused responsibility; advisory ranges are advisory	Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion in imposing same sentence

United States v. Hill, 750 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal)
United States v. Clay, 618 F.3d 946 (8th Cir. 2010) (elements of conspiracy conviction)
United States v. Louper-Morris, 672 F.3d 539 (8th Cir. 2012) (elements of wire fraud conviction)
United States v. Idriss, 436 F.3d 946 (8th Cir. 2006) (jury may consider all circumstances to infer intent/knowledge)
United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (perjury finding required before applying obstruction enhancement)
United States v. Kessler, 321 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2003) (affirming obstruction enhancement without explicit recitation of each predicate when record supports finding)
United States v. Brown, 311 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2002) (similar affirmation of obstruction finding)
United States v. Esparza, 291 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. 2002) (same)
United States v. Fry, 792 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2015) (discussion of unwarranted sentencing disparities standard)
United States v. Lazenby, 439 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2006) (discussing sentencing disparity among co‑defendants)