United States v. George Karadimos

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-30199

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00373-HA-

v.

MEMORANDUM*

GEORGE KARADIMOS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Ancer L. Haggerty, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 12, 2012 Portland, Oregon

Before: GOODWIN, PREGERSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

George Karadimos appeals the 18-month sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for criminal infringement of a copyright, in violation of

U.S.C. § 506(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2319(a) and (b)(1). We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. We grant the government’s Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal

pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e). Though the discovery the

government seeks to submit on…

MEMORANDUM *

George Karadimos appeals the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for criminal infringement of a copyright, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 506 (a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2319 (a) and (b)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we vacate and remand.

We grant the government’s Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e). Though the discovery the government seeks to submit on appeal was not filed with the district court, remanding for the district court to review it in the first instance would be contrary to the interests of justice and the efficient use of judicial resources. See Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir.2003) (recognizing this court’s inherent authority to supplement record in extraordinary cases). The record shows the discovery was served on defense counsel on November 18, 2009, and we discern no prejudice to considering it on appeal.

*145 Turning to the merits, Karadimos argues on appeal that the district court erroneously calculated the infringement amount under U.S.S.G. § 2B5.8, cmt. n. 2(A) because the government failed to prove the retail value of the…

concurring:

I concur in the memorandum disposition, but write separately to address Kara-dimos’s eighteen-month sentence for nonviolent copyright infringement. There is no evidence in the record that copyright owners suffered any actual pecuniary harm. The record discloses Karadimos’s extraordinary family circumstances and other mitigating factors, some of which the district court considered. Karadimos has accepted responsibility for his misdeeds. He pled guilty to the single count of copyright infringement. He was released on his own recognizance on the date he was indicted. He has not committed any further offenses.

Karadimos’s daughter, born after Kara-dimos’s copyright infringement ended, was abandoned by her mother shortly after her birth. Since then, Karadimos has been the sole caretaker of his daughter and has dedicated his life to raising her. I cannot see how society will benefit from putting Karadimos in prison for eighteen months and depriving his young daughter of her loving father’s care.