
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vagan DOBADZHYAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50336
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2017  Pasadena, California
    Filed December 14, 2017
    L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Andrew Brown, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Michael Anthony Brown, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Victor Sherman, Attorney, Law Offices of Victor Sherman, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: REINHARDT, GILMAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)..
    
    
      
      The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a $220,000 partial bail forfeiture after Defendant-Appellant Va-gan Dobadzhyan breached a condition of his bond by committing another crime while released on bail.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46(f) provides that “[t]he court must declare the bail forfeited if a condition of the bond is breached,” but allows, a court to “set aside in whole or in part a bail forfeiture” in accordance with “justice.” We have established six non-exhaustive factors courts may consider when determining whether a forfeiture should be remitted. United States v. Nguyen, 279 F.3d 1112, 1115-16 (9th Cir. 2002). Not- all factors need “be resolved in the government’s favor” for a court to find forfeiture appropriate. Id. at 1116 (citation omitted). The district court found that four factors weighed in favor of forfeiture, one factor weighed against forfeiture, and one factor was irrelevant. Nevertheless, the district court remitted all of the $50,000 appearance bond and half of the $440,000 bond secured by real estate owned by Dobad-zhyan, his ex-wife, and his daughter, recognizing the burden on Dobadzhyan’s family members. The district court remained “sympathetic to the consequences a forfeiture may have on the sureties,” id. at 1115 (citation omitted), and acted well within its considerable discretion in remitting more than half of the total bond.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
     