Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03284/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03284-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Tong Xiong
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3284

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Minnesota.

Tong Xiong, also known as Johnny, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 20, 2005

Filed: July 8, 2005

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD and

COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tong Xiong appeals from his sentence of 97 months for the sexual trafficking

of a minor, see 18 U.S.C. § 1591. He argues that the district court1

 violated his sixth

amendment rights in sentencing him. We disagree and affirm.

The district court sentenced Mr. Xiong on the basis of facts that were contained

in his presentence investigation report and to which Mr. Xiong made no objection.

Appellate Case: 04-3284 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2005 Entry ID: 1925433
-2-

Since Mr. Xiong is therefore taken to have admitted these facts, the district court

committed no sixth amendment error in arriving at the guideline range applicable to

Mr. Xiong's case. See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 755-56 (2005); United

States v. McCully, 407 F.3d 931, 933 (8th Cir. 2005).

While the district court erred by sentencing Mr. Xiong on the assumption that

the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, because this issue was not raised in the

district court we review for plain error only. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d

543, 548-50 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). Our examination of the record does not lead

us to conclude that there is reasonable probability that the district court would have

given Mr. Xiong a shorter sentence had it been aware that the guidelines were

advisory. Mr. Xiong therefore has not established that the error affected his

substantial rights, one of the prerequisites for plain-error relief. See id. at 550-51.

Affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3284 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2005 Entry ID: 1925433