United States v. Vagan Dobadzhyan ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 14 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50336
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:12-cr-00446-BRO-1
v.
VAGAN DOBADZHYAN, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Beverly Reid O’Connell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT, GILMAN,*** and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
***
The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a $220,000 partial
bail forfeiture after Defendant-Appellant Vagan Dobadzhyan breached a condition
of his bond by committing another crime while released on bail.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46(f) provides that “[t]he court must
declare the bail forfeited if a condition of the bond is breached,” but allows a court
to “set aside in whole or in part a bail forfeiture” in accordance with “justice.” We
have established six non-exhaustive factors courts may consider when determining
whether a forfeiture should be remitted. United States v. Nguyen, 279 F.3d 1112,
1115-16 (9th Cir. 2002). Not all factors need “be resolved in the government’s
favor” for a court to find forfeiture appropriate. Id. at 1116 (citation omitted). The
district court found that four factors weighed in favor of forfeiture, one factor
weighed against forfeiture, and one factor was irrelevant. Nevertheless, the district
court remitted all of the $50,000 appearance bond and half of the $440,000 bond
secured by real estate owned by Dobadzhyan, his ex-wife, and his daughter,
recognizing the burden on Dobadzhyan’s family members. The district court
remained “sympathetic to the consequences a forfeiture may have on the sureties,”
id. at 1115 (citation omitted), and acted well within its considerable discretion in
remitting more than half of the total bond.
AFFIRMED.
2