Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03519/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03519-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hung Q. Dao
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3519

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Hung Q. Dao, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 18, 2006

Filed: August 29, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Hung Dao pleaded guilty to distributing and possessing with intent to distribute

50 grams or more of methamphetamine mixture within 1,000 feet of an elementary

school or playground, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 860(a), and

18 U.S.C. § 2. At sentencing, the district court1

 calculated a Guidelines imprisonment

range of 63-78 months, and sentenced Dao to 63 months in prison and 8 years of

supervised release. On appeal, counsel seeks permission to withdraw and has filed a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is

Appellate Case: 05-3519 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2006 Entry ID: 2083451
-2-

excessive, because the court failed to take into consideration the factors in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) regarding Dao’s personal history and characteristics. 

Setting aside the issue whether Dao may challenge the length of his sentence

given the stipulations in his plea agreement and in the parties’ subsequent joint

statement of position on sentencing, we find that the district court’s sentence is not

unreasonable. The court properly considered section 3553(a), noting the advisory

Guidelines range and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the

offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment, and to afford

deterrence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) and (B); United States v. Long Soldier,

431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005). Dao was sentenced at the bottom of the

applicable Guidelines range, and we see nothing in the record to indicate the district

court failed to consider a relevant factor, based its sentence on an improper or

irrelevant factor, or made a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Tobacco,

428 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentence within applicable Guidelines range is

presumptively reasonable; describing how presumption can be rebutted).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, and

we grant counsel permission to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3519 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2006 Entry ID: 2083451