Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01858/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01858-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christian Pham
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1857

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Tung Thanh Nguyen, * 

also known as Tung Nguyen, *

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Appeals from the United States

No. 09-1858 District Court for the 

___________ District of Minnesota.

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Christian Pham, *

*

Appellant. *

__________

Submitted: March 8, 2010

Filed: April 6, 2010

___________

Appellate Case: 09-1858 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2010 Entry ID: 3651791
1

The Honorable William Jay Riley became Chief Judge of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2010.

2

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of Minnesota. 

-2-

Before RILEY,1

 Chief Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tung Thanh Nguyen and Christian Pham each pled guilty to one count of

conspiracy to manufacture 1,000 or more marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and 846. The district court2

 sentenced Nguyen to 120

months imprisonment and Pham to 37 months imprisonment. Nguyen and Pham

appeal their sentences. 

Nguyen claims the district court erred in finding he was a leader or organizer

in the conspiracy, disqualifying Nguyen for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(f)(4) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, and thereafter in sentencing Nguyen “without

regard for the safety valve provision in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).” “A defendant’s offense

level must be increased by four levels if the defendant was ‘an organizer or leader of

a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise

extensive.’” United States v. Garcia, 512 F.3d 1004, 1005 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a)). “The terms ‘organizer’ and ‘leader’ are interpreted broadly.”

Id. (citation omitted). “The Government has the burden of proving by a

preponderance of the evidence that the aggravating role enhancement is warranted.”

United States v. Garcia-Hernandez, 530 F.3d 657, 665 (8th Cir. 2008). Courts

determining a defendant’s role in the offense should consider:

the exercise of decision making authority, the nature of participation in

the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the

claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of

Appellate Case: 09-1858 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2010 Entry ID: 3651791
3

Pham admits his counsel “agreed with the finding in the [PSR] that [Pham] was

an ‘average’ participant,” and claims this was ineffective assistance of counsel.

“Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, however, are usually best litigated in

collateral proceedings.” United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27

(8th Cir. 2006); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We therefore decline to address Pham’s

-3-

participation in planning or organizing the offense, the nature and scope

of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised

over others.

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4. “We review for clear error the district court’s factual

findings underlying the imposition of a sentencing enhancement based on [Nguyen’s]

role in the offense.” United States v. Rosas, 486 F.3d 374, 376 (8th Cir. 2007)

(citation omitted). 

After five days of trial, Nguyen pled guilty to conspiring to manufacture

marijuana. Throughout the trial, witnesses and co-conspirators testified regarding

Nguyen’s role as an “investor,” establishing Nguyen (1) purchased the equipment

needed for growing marijuana and set up grow houses for others to maintain;

(2) recruited co-conspirators to live in grow houses; (3) taught one co-conspirator how

to maintain a grow house; and (4) received a 30% share of the profits. During

Nguyen’s sentencing hearing, the district court adopted, without objection, the factual

statements contained in Nguyen’s presentence investigation report (PSR) which also

support a finding Nguyen was a leader or organizer in the conspiracy. The district

court did not clearly err in finding Nguyen was a leader or organizer, and therefore,

Nguyen did not qualify for the safety valve reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(4).

Pham argues the district court erred in finding he was an average participant in

the conspiracy. During sentencing, Pham did not object to the PSR’s conclusion or

the district court’s finding that Pham was an average participant in the conspiracy, nor

did Pham seek an adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 for being a minor or minimal

participant in the offense.3

 We therefore review Pham’s claim “for plain error

Appellate Case: 09-1858 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/06/2010 Entry ID: 3651791
ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d at 827. 

-4-

resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Nichols, 151 F.3d 850, 854 (8th

Cir. 1998). The stipulated facts set forth in Pham’s plea agreement, the factual

statements in the PSR, which were adopted by the district court, and the facts Pham

conceded during sentencing and in his brief on appeal support the district court’s

finding Pham was an average participant in the conspiracy. The district court did not

plainly err in sentencing Pham as an average participant. 

Finally, Pham argues the district court inadequately considered the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors and created unwarranted sentencing disparities when the court gave

lesser sentences to some of Pham’s co-defendants who were also classified as average

participants in the conspiracy. “On appeal, a district court’s sentence is reviewed for

abuse of discretion.” United States v. Mosby, 543 F.3d 438, 440 (8th Cir. 2008)

(citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). Upon a thorough review of the

record, we find the district court adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors. See

United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009) (“We do not require the

district court to mechanically recite the § 3553(a) factors when, as here, it is clear

from the record that the court properly considered those factors.”). Pham received the

lowest sentence given any of the non-cooperating defendants responsible for 1,000 or

more marijuana plants. Likewise, the record does not support Pham’s claim of

sentencing disparity, as there is no evidence that his co-defendants “were similarly

situated in terms of conduct, criminal history, and acceptance of responsibility.”

United States v. Boyce, 564 F.3d 911, 917 (8th Cir. 2009); see also United States v.

Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 683 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting sentencing disparities which are

based on legitimate distinctions between co-conspirators are not unreasonable); United

States v. Watson, 480 F.3d 1175, 1178 (8th Cir. 2007) (same).

We affirm the district court’s sentences for both Nguyen and Pham.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1858 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/06/2010 Entry ID: 3651791