United States v. Parvin Atabay

415 F. App'x 772
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 22, 2011
Docket10-50159
StatusUnpublished

This text of 415 F. App'x 772 (United States v. Parvin Atabay) 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.

Bluebook
United States v. Parvin Atabay, 415 F. App'x 772 (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Parvin Atabay appeals from the 18-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for five counts of health fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Atabay contends that the district court erred by applying a three-level increase, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(b), based on her role in the offense. The district court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement for her role in the offense because, among other things, she owned and managed the clinic where the fraud occurred, paid and directed the recruiters, advised the marketers to set up corporations for themselves, and submitted bills containing materially false statements to the insurance companies. See United States v. Koenig, 952 F.2d 267, 274 (9th Cir.1991).

Atabay also contends that the district court erred by not making factual findings supporting the role enhancement. The record reflects that the district court made adequate factual findings to support the enhancement. See United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir.2000) (“[T]he district court may, without error, rely on evidence presented in the PSR to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts underlying a sentence enhancement have been established.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Jose Alfredo Maldonado, AKA Chino
215 F.3d 1046 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Koenig
952 F.2d 267 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
415 F. App'x 772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-parvin-atabay-ca9-2011.