Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01722/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01722-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Truong Mai Vo
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1722

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the 

* Southern District of Iowa. 

Truong Mai Vo, *

also known as Jimmy Vo, * 

 *

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 14, 2005

Filed: October 6, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Truong Mai Vo, also known as Jimmy Vo, was convicted by a jury of

conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, distribution of a controlled substance

within 1,000 feet of a playground, and distribution within 1,000 feet of a school. He

was sentenced by the district court1

 to 156 months imprisonment and appeals, now

arguing that he is entitled to resentencing because of sentencing entrapment and

manipulation. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-1722 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/06/2005 Entry ID: 1960184
-2-

In August 2003 law enforcement officers in Iowa were alerted by officials in

New York that large quantities of MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxy-Nmethamphetamine), popularly known as Ecstasy, were being shipped to Des Moines

for distribution. A confidential informant led police to Vo, and an undercover officer

purchased illegal drugs from him on eight separate occasions. Vo sold the officer

four ounces of cocaine, 1045 Ecstasy pills of varying types, and a sample of

marijuana for a total purchase price of $13,400. The undercover agent testified that

he continued making buys from Vo in order to learn about the source of the drugs and

to identify other members of the operation, and he did obtain from them information

about the dates of expected drug shipments to Des Moines and the identities of others

involved in their distribution. 

As part of a Drug Enforcement Administration initiative labeled "Operation

Candy Box," which targeted an extensive network distributing illegal substances,

officers conducted thirty five warrant searches in sixteen different cities in the United

States on March 31, 2004. In the thirty five searches in the United States and in fifty

others conducted in Canada, authorities seized $2,862,300 in United States currency,

7,000 Ecstasy tablets, 206 pounds of marijuana, 34 weapons, and 35 vehicles. One

hundred and thirty individuals were arrested. At Vo's residence, officers recovered

797 Ecstasy tablets, 13.9 grams of cocaine, 3.5 grams of marijuana, and nicotinamide,

a cutting agent. 

A grand jury in the Southern District of Iowa indicted Vo and four others for

conspiracy to distribute Ecstasy, cocaine, and marijuana in that district and elsewhere.

It also charged Vo with distribution of Ecstasy within 1,000 feet of a playground,

distribution of Ecstasy within 1,000 feet of an elementary school, and distribution of

Ecstasy to a person under twenty one. In addition, Vo and another codefendant were

indicted for possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense. 

Appellate Case: 05-1722 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/06/2005 Entry ID: 1960184
-3-

The charge of distributing Ecstasy to an underage person was dismissed before

trial, and Vo went to trial on the other counts. The jury found him guilty of

conspiracy and the two distribution counts, but not guilty on the firearm charge. In

special interrogatories the jury was asked whether or not it found beyond a reasonable

doubt that 100 kilograms or more of marijuana and 5 kilograms of cocaine were

involved in the conspiracy and reasonably foreseeable to Vo. The jury answered

these questions in the affirmative, but it was not asked about the quantity of Ecstasy

reasonably foreseeable to him. 

Vo was sentenced after the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker,

125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). At the sentencing hearing the district court began by

calculating a guideline sentence. After considering Vo's response to the presentence

investigation report, the government's sentencing memorandum, the evidence at trial,

and arguments by the parties, the district court found Vo responsible for 35,700

Ecstasy pills, 11.25 kilograms of cocaine, and more than 100 kilograms of marijuana,

producing a base offense level of 34. Vo's argument that he should only be held

responsible for the amounts purchased by the undercover officer or found by the jury

in the special interrogatories was rejected. The district court applied a one level

enhancement for proximity to a protected location, but declined to apply

enhancements for possession of a firearm or for role in the offense. Vo's total offense

level of 35 and criminal history category I yielded an advisory guideline range of 168

to 210 months. After taking into account Vo's background and his attempt to

cooperate prior to trial, the district court sentenced him to serve 156 months. 

Now Vo argues on appeal that his sentence is the unlawful result of sentencing

entrapment and sentencing manipulation. In United States v. Overstreet, 5 F.3d 295,

297 (1993), we declined to address a sentencing entrapment argument not raised in

the district court when the appellant offered "no explanation for his failure" to do so.

While Vo has offered no explanation for his failure to raise his sentencing arguments

to the district court, the government has not cited Overstreet and has not argued that

Appellate Case: 05-1722 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/06/2005 Entry ID: 1960184
-4-

Vo waived his sentencing arguments. We also note that the appellant in Overstreet

raised additional arguments on appeal which the court did address, in contrast to Vo's

appeal which is focused only on sentencing entrapment and manipulation. In these

circumstances we choose to address his arguments. They are subject to plain error

review since he forfeited the claims in the district court. To establish plain error, Vo

must show (1) an error, (2) that is plain, that not only (3) affected his substantial

rights, but also (4) "seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of

judicial proceedings." Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 (1997). 

Vo claims that governmental conduct during the investigation of his crimes

improperly subjected him to an increased sentence. If an individual, "predisposed to

commit a minor or lesser offense, is entrapped in[to] committing a greater offense

subject to greater punishment" he may have a sentencing entrapment defense. United

States v. Stuart, 923 F.2d 607, 613 (8th Cir. 1991). The focus of such a defense is on

the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime. United States v. Searcy, 284 F.3d

938, 942 (8th Cir. 2002). In contrast, sentencing manipulation focuses on "whether

the government stretched out the investigation merely to increase (the defendant's

sentence)," United States v. Shepard, 4 F.3d 647, 649 (8th Cir. 1993), but the defense

is undermined by evidence that a series of undercover purchases was made for the

purpose of probing "the depth and extent of a criminal enterprise, [determining]

whether coconspirators exist, [or tracing] the drug deeper into the distribution

hierarchy." United States v. Calva, 979 F.2d 119, 123 (8th Cir. 1992). Vo also relies

on U.S.S.G. § D1.1, cmt. 12, under which a sentence may be decreased if a defendant

"establishes that he or she did not intend to provide, or was not reasonably capable

of providing, the agreed upon quantity." 

Vo was found responsible for 35,700 Ecstasy pills, 11.25 kilograms of cocaine,

and in excess of 100 kilograms of marijuana, the quantity of drugs connected to the

conspiracy that the district court found reasonably foreseeable to him, rather than the

relatively small amounts purchased by the undercover officer. The district court

Appellate Case: 05-1722 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/06/2005 Entry ID: 1960184
-5-

heard evidence that the undercover agent made repeated purchases to gather more

information about the overarching conspiracy, as well as evidence indicating Vo's

disposition to sell illegal substances in the quantities sold to the officer. This

evidence included testimony by his coconspirators about Vo's willingness to

participate in drug deals of similar quantities before he ever met the undercover agent.

Moreover, Vo fails to explain how sentencing manipulation and sentencing

enhancement would apply here where his sentence was based on his involvement in

the conspiracy and not on the limited quantity of drugs he sold to the undercover

agent. There is also ample evidence indicating Vo's predisposition to commit the

offenses and showing that the series of buys produced useful information about other

coconspirators. We conclude that Vo has not shown plain error or in fact any error

in his sentence. See Johnson, 520 U.S. at 466-67. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________ 

Appellate Case: 05-1722 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/06/2005 Entry ID: 1960184