United States of America v. Artiom Alabilikian

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ARTIOM ALABILIKIAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50265
D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00188-GW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Artiom Alabilikian appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
his guilty-plea convictions and aggregate 47-month sentence for conspiracy to
commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349; bank fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1344; conspiracy to unlawfully possess access devices, in violation of 18
* 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).
FILED
MAY 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-50265
U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2); unlawful possession of 15 or more unauthorized access
devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3); and aggravated identity theft, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), Alabilikian’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds
for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have
provided Alabilikian the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se
supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal as to
Alabilikian’s conviction and sentence, with the exception of the three supervised
release conditions discussed below.
Standard conditions five, six, and fourteen are unconstitutionally vague. See
United States v. Evans, 883 F.3d 1154, 1162-64 (9th Cir. 2018). We remand for
the district court to modify these conditions consistent with our opinion in Evans.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions.

-- 2 of 2 --