United States v. Kalayjian
This text of United States v. Kalayjian (United States v. Kalayjian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 10 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-6103 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 9:17-cr-00013-DLC-1 v. MEMORANDUM* GREGORY DAVID KALAYJIAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 19, 2025**
Before: SILVERMAN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Gregory David Kalayjian appeals from the district court’s order denying his
third motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see
United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.
* 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). Kalayjian contends that the district court abused its discretion and violated
due process by improperly relying on a statement by a cooperating witness
contained in the presentence report. The record shows, however, that the court
understood the statement was merely an allegation and denied the motion primarily
for other reasons, including Kalayjian’s extensive criminal history and the amount
of time remaining on his sentence. On this record, the court did not violate due
process. See United States v. Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 935-36 (9th Cir.
2009) (to establish a due process violation, defendant must show that the
challenged information was the basis for the decision). Moreover, the court did not
abuse its discretion in concluding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors as a whole
did not support compassionate release. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284.
AFFIRMED.
2 24-6103
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Kalayjian, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-kalayjian-ca9-2025.