Opinion
No. 2:14-cr-0083-JAM
04-27-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MIHRAN MELKONYAN, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
Mihran Melkonyan ("Defendant"), a prisoner serving his sentence at the Lompoc Federal Correctional Institution ("Lompoc FCI"), a Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") facility located in Lompoc, California, moves for a reduction of his term of imprisonment under the federal compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Mot., ECF No. 419. The Government filed an opposition, ECF No. 422, to which Defendant replied, ECF No. 424. After consideration of the parties' briefing on the motion and relevant legal authority, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence. /// ///
I. BACKGROUND
On February 15, 2017, Defendant was found guilty on twenty-four counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and two counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Verdict Form, ECF No. 174. On January 4, 2019, Defendant was sentenced to 230 months of imprisonment. Judgment, ECF No. 294. Defendant began service of sentence on January 4, 2019. BOP Inmate Data, Ex. 1 to Opp'n at 3, ECF No. 422-1. His projected release date is August 13, 2031. Id.
On January 16, 2019, Defendant filed a notice of appeal. ECF No. 290. Among the issues on appeal, Defendant challenges his 230-month sentence as "substantively unreasonable." Opening Appellate Brief, Ex. D to Mot. at 29-36, ECF No. 419-4. That appeal remains pending before the Ninth Circuit. See United States v. Melkonyan, Case No. 19-10026. Defendant now requests this Court reduce his sentence and release him in advance of his projected release date because he is at risk of contracting, and experiencing serious complications from, COVID-19 if he remains at Lompoc FCI. Mot. at 2-4.
II. OPINION
The procedural posture of this case divests this Court of the jurisdiction necessary to consider Defendant's motion. Defendant filed this motion after he filed a notice of appeal in this Court. See ECF No. 290. "The filing of a notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." United States v. Ortega-Lopez, 988 F.2d 70, 72 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 46, 58 (1982)) (internal quotation marks omitted). And although Ortega-Lopez held the district court lacked jurisdiction to modify a sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b), not under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), "there is no basis for distinguishing between these two types of modifications for jurisdictional purposes." United States v. Maldonado-Rios, 790 F.3d 62, 64 (1st Cir. 2015). On appeal, Defendant challenges the length of his sentence. See Opening Appellate Brief at 29-36. Thus, his sentence is directly involved in the appeal. Accordingly, this Court is divested of its ability to reduce Defendant's sentence. See Ortega-Lopez, 988 F.2d at 72 ("[A] district court is divested of jurisdiction once a notice of appeal has been filed from the original sentence.").
III. ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 27, 2020
/s/ _________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE