Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03283/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03283-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Pheng Yang
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. 04-3283

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

Pheng Yang, also known as Fuji, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 7, 2005

Filed: September 23, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pheng Yang appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded

guilty to aiding and abetting the sexual trafficking of minor B.B. He argues that the

district court erred in (1) assessing a 2-level increase under U.S.S.G. §§ 2G1.1(d)(1)

(multiple victims in commercial sex crime) and 3D1.4(a) (multiple count adjustment)

(2003), because he pleaded guilty to one count that involved only one victim; and

(2) increasing his offense level under both U.S.S.G. § 2G1.1(b)(1) (offense involved

commercial sex act and use of physical force, fraud, or coercion) and (b)(4)(B)

Appellate Case: 04-3283 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2005 Entry ID: 1955328
-2-

(participant unduly influenced minor to engage in commercial sex act), because it was

“double counting.” 

Yang’s first argument fails because the district court did not clearly err in

finding that the offense of conviction involved a second victim: unobjected-to

portions of the presentence report (PSR) indicate a second victim, M.M., was

subjected to all of the charged commercial-sex activities. See United States v. Thorn,

413 F.3d 820, 823 (8th Cir. 2005) (facts presented in PSR are deemed admitted unless

defendant objects to inclusion of those facts); United States v. Mathijssen, 406 F.3d

496, 498 (8th Cir. 2005) (district court’s factual findings in application of Guidelines

are reviewed for clear error). Further, application of section 2G1.1(d)(1) to the

second victim was proper: according to Commentary Application Note 4, section

2G1.1(d)(1) “directs that if the relevant conduct of an offense of conviction” involves

more than one victim, “whether specifically cited in the count of conviction, each

such victim shall be treated as if contained in a separate count of conviction.” See

Mathijssen, 406 F.3d at 498 (application of Guidelines is reviewed de novo).

Yang’s second argument fails because he agreed to the relevant increases in his

plea agreement. See United States v. Barrett, 173 F.3d 682, 684 (8th Cir. 1999)

(defendant may not challenge application of Guidelines to which he agreed in plea

agreement unless he proves agreement is invalid or succeeds in withdrawing from it).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3283 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2005 Entry ID: 1955328