United States v. Minasyan, No. 19-50185 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349, and entered into a plea agreement with the United States government. Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant waived the right to appeal his conviction except on the ground that his plea was involuntary, and waived the right to appeal most aspects of his sentence if the district court determined that the offense level was no greater than 25.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit health care fraud, holding that defendant's appeal waiver is enforceable. In so holding, the panel rejected defendant's contentions that the waiver was not knowing and voluntary, either by reason of the district court's sentencing procedure or its misstatement of the intent element during the plea colloquy. Rather, the panel concluded that defendant had a full and fair opportunity to be heard and that the district court gave defendant a fair opportunity to contest the government's loss calculation even if it was not the full evidentiary hearing defendant wanted. Furthermore, the improperly stated elements in the plea agreement did not render defendant's plea involuntary. The panel also rejected defendant's contention that the government implicitly breached the plea agreement. In this case, defendant's appeal waiver is enforceable and the language of the waiver encompasses his right to appeal on the grounds raised.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence in a case in which the defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit health care fraud. The defendant entered into a plea agreement in which he waived the right to appeal his conviction except on the ground that his plea was involuntary, and waived the right to appeal most aspects of his sentence if the district court determined that the offense level was no greater than 25. The defendant contended that his plea was involuntary because the district court did not give him a full and fair opportunity to contest the loss amount at his sentencing hearing. He appeared to contend both that his inability to contest the loss amount violated due process, rendering the sentence illegal, and that his plea was involuntary because the district court’s sentencing procedure was inconsistent with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 and the Sentencing Guidelines. The panel wrote that neither contention is persuasive because the defendant had an adequate opportunity to contest the loss amount at the sentencing hearing. The panel disagreed with the defendant’s contention that the cumulative result of the district court’s refusal to withdraw his guilty plea, denial of motions for substitute counsel and continuances, and statements at sentencing demonstrate that the district court did not take seriously his challenge to the evidence on UNITED STATES V. MINASYAN 3 intended loss. The panel wrote that the district court permissibly denied the defendant’s motions, and therefore the denials do not support the voluntariness claim, that the defendant did not carry his burden to show that a “fair and just reason” existed for the withdrawal, and that the district court’s comments at sentencing—that the defendant should not have pleaded guilty if he wanted to contest the amount of loss—may have been casual or imprudent, but did not render the guilty plea involuntary. The defendant also contended that his plea was involuntary because—in light of United States v. Miller, 953 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2020)—the plea agreement improperly stated the elements of the offense by stating that the requisite intent for the defendant’s offense was “to deceive or cheat,” instead of “to deceive and cheat.” The panel wrote that even assuming Miller is controlling authority that would render any error here plain, the defendant is unable to show his substantial rights were affected, as he does not provide evidence that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had known the requisite intent was conjunctive, rather than disjunctive. The defendant contended that the appellate waiver is unenforceable because the government breached the plea agreement by attempting to influence the court to give a higher sentence than the prosecutor’s recommendation and by making statements at sentencing that were impermissibly inconsistent with its position at trial. The panel held that the government did not breach the plea agreement—explicitly or implicitly—and that the defendant’s argument that a breach occurred cannot render his appeal waiver unenforceable. 4 UNITED STATES V. MINASYAN
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.