Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02349/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02349-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hong Thanh Phan
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2349

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Hong Thanh Phan, * Western District of Arkansas

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: March 31, 2005

Filed: April 29, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Hong Phan, also known as Julie Phan, appeals from the final judgment entered

in the District Court1

 for the Western District of Arkansas upon a jury verdict finding

her guilty of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and distribution of more than

5 grams of actual methamphetamine on July 14, 2003, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii), and 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district court sentenced

Phan to 97 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. For reversal, Phan

argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict her, and that the district court

Appellate Case: 04-2349 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2005 Entry ID: 1897303
-2-

erred in denying her motion to quash the jury pool. For the reasons discussed below,

we affirm the judgment of the district court.

The evidence at trial established that an undercover officer and a confidential

informant met with Phan’s codefendant, Andy Nguyen, to purchase

methamphetamine on July 14, 2003. After Nguyen placed a call, Phan showed up

with a Band-aid box containing more than 11 grams of actual methamphetamine and

accepted $3,200 from the undercover officer. Phan’s live-in boyfriend, Kevin

Nguyen, supplied the methamphetamine during undercover purchases on other

occasions. Andy Nguyen testified that Phan and Kevin Nguyen were his suppliers.

Although Phan testified that she knew nothing about the methamphetamine, and that

the money she received was payment for a loan she had previously made to Andy

Nguyen, the jury was entitled to credit the testimony of the other witnesses over that

of Phan. See United States v. Rodriguez-Mendez, 336 F.3d 692, 696 (8th Cir. 2003)

(credibility of witnesses is to be determined by jury); United States v. Tensley, 334

F.3d 790, 794-95 (8th Cir. 2003) (testimony of co-conspirators was sufficient to

support jury’s determination of guilt on conspiracy charge). In addition, drugs and

drug paraphernalia were found in the residence Phan shared with Kevin Nguyen, and

a drug ledger was found in Phan’s purse. This evidence was sufficient to support the

jury’s verdict. See United States v. Ramirez, 350 F.3d 780, 783 (8th Cir. 2003) (in

reviewing challenge to sufficiency of evidence, this court views evidence in light

most favorable to government and will reverse only if no reasonable jury could have

found guilt beyond reasonable doubt).

We also find that the district court did not err in denying Phan’s motion to

quash the jury pool. Jury pools are drawn from voter registration lists, and Phan did

not offer any evidence that Asian Americans face obstacles to registering to vote in

presidential elections. See United States v. Sanchez, 156 F.3d 875, 879 (8th Cir.

1998) (de novo standard of review); United States v. Greatwalker, 356 F.3d 908, 911

Appellate Case: 04-2349 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2005 Entry ID: 1897303
-3-

(8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (disparity between jury pool and general population does

not by itself invalidate system).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2349 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/29/2005 Entry ID: 1897303