United States v. Ashot Minasyan
4f4th770
| 9th Cir. | 2021Background
- Minasyan, co-owner/operator of Fifth Avenue Home Health, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit health-care fraud after Medicare paid Fifth Avenue about $4.2 million; the plea left loss amount unresolved.
- Plea agreement: Minasyan waived appeal of his conviction except for claims that the plea was involuntary; he also waived most sentence appeals if the court calculated an offense level ≤ 25. The government agreed to recommend the low end of the calculated Guidelines range.
- Before sentencing Minasyan disputed the PSR’s loss calculation, sought continuances, new counsel, and to withdraw his plea; the district court denied those requests and said he could contest loss at sentencing.
- At sentencing the court heard argument, relied partly on evidence from a co-defendant’s trial (including a “light box” and pre-signed forms), adopted the PSR loss calculation (~$4.2M), and sentenced Minasyan to 78 months and restitution of about $4.2M.
- On appeal Minasyan argued the appeal waiver was unenforceable because (1) the court curtailed his opportunity to contest loss (due process/Rule 32), (2) the plea misdescribed the mens rea (invoking United States v. Miller), and (3) the government implicitly breached the plea agreement by arguing for a harsher sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Minasyan) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of appeal waiver | Waiver not knowing/voluntary due to sentencing procedure and district-court statements | Waiver is valid; language covers these claims and defendant admitted understanding waiver | Waiver enforceable; covers the appealed claims; affirm |
| Adequacy of opportunity to contest loss (due process / Rule 32) | District court curtailed ability to present evidence, denied continuances/new counsel/withdrawal, and made comments undermining fairness | Defendant had written objections, made arguments at sentencing; Rule 32 permits district court discretion on evidentiary hearings | No involuntary plea; defendant had fair and adequate opportunity to contest loss; no due-process violation |
| Misstated mens rea in plea (Miller issue: “deceive or cheat” v. “deceive and cheat”) | Plea recited disjunctive mens rea; under Miller mens rea is conjunctive, so plea involuntary | Any error not shown to have affected substantial rights; no reason Minasyan would have refused plea if correct wording used | Even assuming plain error, no showing of prejudice; plea not involuntary on this basis |
| Government breach of plea agreement | Government implicitly sought a higher sentence and introduced inconsistent/ prejudicial facts at sentencing, breaching agreement and voiding waiver | Government recommended low-end as required and could comment on relevant conspiracy facts; no implicit breach | No breach (explicit or implicit); appeal waiver remains enforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miller, 953 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2020) (construing fraud mens rea as a scheme to "cheat," relevant to mens rea wording in plea)
- United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2009) (appeal-waiver enforcement standard: language must encompass claim and waiver must be knowing and voluntary)
- Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977) (due-process principles apply to sentencing factfinding)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard requires clear or obvious error)
- United States v. Lo, 839 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 2016) (upholding valid appeal waivers and limits on appellate review)
- United States v. Cannel, 517 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2008) (plain-error framework and burden to show serious effect on proceedings)
- United States v. Odachyan, 749 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2014) (appeal-waiver scope: many sentencing challenges are encompassed by waiver)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (importance and benefits of plea bargaining)