United States v. Arman Nshanian, No. 14-2715 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendants Nshanian and Nash were convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and wire fraud. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their involvement in a scheme to purchase real estate using material misrepresentations. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict Nshanian where a reasonable jury could infer that he knew of the conspiracy and scheme to defraud, and that he intended to defraud lenders. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying Nshanian’s motion for judgment of acquittal. The court also concluded that the district court did not err at sentencing when it imposed a two-level increase for obstruction of justice pursuant to USSG 3C1.1 where the record is clear that the district court recognized its obligation to consider whether inaccurate testimony resulted from confusion, mistake or faulty memory. Under these circumstances, the district court’s finding was adequate. The court also concluded that Nshanian's 42-month sentence was substantively reasonable where it represented a substantial downward variance from the advisory guideline range. Finally, Nash's 42-month sentence was also substantively reasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and sentenced Nash to a lower advisory guideline range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Gruender and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - conviction and sentence. Substantial evidence supported Nshanian's conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, as the jury reasonably could infer from the evidence that Nshanian knew of conspiracy and scheme to defraud and that he intended to defraud lenders. Documents he signed contained material misrepresentations. Thus the district court did not err in denying motion for judgment of acquittal. District court made an adequate finding that Nshanian committed perjury to support enhancement for obstruction of justice under Guidelines sec. 3C1.1. His 42-month sentence, representing a substantial downward variance and after he refused to accept responsibility, was not substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Nash to a similar 42-month sentence.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.