Mikaelian

MEMORANDUM *

In this case, we are asked to decide whether the district court erred in Hovsep Mikaelian’s remanded sentencing hearing. The hearing was conducted pursuant to a remand order in United States v. Hovsep Mikaelian, 168 F.3d 380 (9th Cir.), amended by 180 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir.1999) [hereinafter Mikaelian I], We affirm in all respects. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and prior proceedings, we do not restate them unless necessary.

DISCUSSION

I. Evidentiary rulings

Mikaelian contends that the district court denied him due process through a series of erroneous evidentiary rulings that prevented the district court from properly determining one of the primary issues on remand: whether the government acted in bad faith when it refused to file a motion for downward departure. We hold that the district court only abused its discretion when it 1) prevented defense counsel from questioning AUSA Steven Larson about letters written by defense counsel to Larson and co-defendants; and 2) prevented defense counsel from asking IRS case agent Kathryn Montemorra whether Mikaelian provided incriminating information about co-defendants or whether co-defendants pleaded guilty…