Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01749/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01749-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tan Tran Minh Huynh
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1749

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Tan Tran Minh Huynh, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 2, 2006

Filed: July 27, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tan Tran Minh Huynh was sentenced as a career offender by the district court1

to 151 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release, after pleading guilty to a

drug conspiracy charge. He appeals. In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that the district court incorrectly assigned Huynh

separate criminal history points for three Missouri burglary sentences that were

“related”: all three sentences were imposed on the same day and two of the burglaries

were committed on the same day. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2) (prior sentences

Appellate Case: 05-1749 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2006 Entry ID: 2071799
-2-

imposed in “related” cases are treated as one sentence for purposes of criminal history

scoring under § 4A1.1). In a supplemental brief, Huynh argues he was improperly

sentenced under the career offender Guideline because his burglary convictions were

not crimes of violence. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) (defendant is career offender if, inter

alia, he has at least two prior convictions of either crime of violence or controlled

substance offense). Specifically, he argues that the Missouri statute under which he

was convicted covers the non-violent burglary of certain “inhabitable structures” (e.g.,

railroad cars, boats, planes, car, etc.), and the district court did not consider any

charging documents to determine the nature of Huynh’s burglaries. 

Huynh’s plea agreement contains a valid appeal waiver under which he waived

his right to appeal all non-jurisdictional issues related to the plea and sentencing,

except for sentencing departures that were not addressed by the plea agreement, and

any ruling regarding the career-offender guideline. See United States v. Andis, 333

F.3d 886, 889-91 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Therefore, we will consider only issues

that fall within the exception to the appeal waiver. 

The Anders brief arguably raises an issue concerning applicability of the

career-offender guideline by suggesting that the three burglary sentences were related.

See U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.2(c) (for career-offender status, predicate felony convictions

should count separately under § 4A1.1); 4A1.2(a)(2). According to the unobjected-to

presentence report (PSR), however, one of the burglaries was committed on a different

date and all three cases retained separate docket numbers in state court, and there is

no indication in the record of a formal order of consolidation. Therefore, Huynh was

properly classified as a career offender. See United States v. Klein, 13 F.3d 1182,

1185 (8th Cir. 1994) (holding, in context of burglaries committed on different dates,

that two or more sentences imposed at same time are not related for purposes of

§ 4A1.2(a)(2) if cases proceeded to sentencing under separate docket numbers and

there was no formal order of consolidation).

Appellate Case: 05-1749 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2006 Entry ID: 2071799
-3-

As for Huynh’s pro se argument, the district court was entitled to rely on the

PSR’s recitation of facts underlying the three burglary convictions, because Huynh

did not object to those facts and the PSR relied on acceptable sources. See United

States v. Bell, 445 F.3d 1086, 1090-91 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. McCall, 439

F.3d 967, 973-74 (8th Cir. 2006) (en banc). The PSR stated that according to “court

documents,” all three burglaries were of residences. And in the course of making an

argument at sentencing about the relatedness of the burglaries, Huynh admitted that

two of the burglaries were of “homes.” We thus conclude that the burglaries were

crimes of violence for purposes of determining career-offender status. See U.S.S.G.

§ 4B1.2 (a)(2) (burglary of dwelling is crime of violence).

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

conclude there are no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

judgment, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. We deny Huynh’s motion to

relieve his counsel as moot.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1749 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/27/2006 Entry ID: 2071799