Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-06267/USCOURTS-ca10-16-06267-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Can D. Phung
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

CAN D. PHUNG, M.D., 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Nos. 16-6252 & 16-6267 

(D.C. No. 5:08-CR-00131-M-1) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, BALDOCK and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Can Phung, a former federal prisoner appearing pro se, filed notices that he 

was appealing the district court’s grant of a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c), and subsequent denial of Phung’s motion to dismiss his court-appointed 

counsel.1

 Because Phung’s appellate briefs do not challenge those rulings, we affirm. 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 

except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It 

may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

1

 Phung filed an initial notice of appeal, No. 16-6252, but after the time to 

appeal had expired, he filed a “replacement” notice of appeal, No. 16-6267, asking 

the court to delete the first notice of appeal because he hadn’t signed it. We construe 

the initial notice of appeal as timely filed, and the replacement notice of appeal as 

(continued) 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

March 28, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-6267 Document: 01019785952 Date Filed: 03/28/2017 Page: 1 
2 

Phung was convicted in 2009 of dispensing controlled substances without 

legitimate medical purpose, health care fraud, and altering records in a federal 

investigation. He was sentenced to 109 months’ imprisonment. Phung’s convictions 

were affirmed on direct appeal. United States v. Phung, 384 F. App’x 787, 794 

(10th Cir. 2010). Phung filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief, 

which was denied in 2011. 

In 2015, the district court identified Phung as potentially eligible for a 

sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, and 

appointed a Federal Public Defender to represent him. See U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual, app. C, amend. 782 (2014) (retroactively reducing by two levels 

many base offense levels in the Guidelines’ Drug Quantity Table); see also

§ 3582(c)(2) (permitting court to modify defendant’s sentence if it was “based on a 

sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing 

Commission”). 

Phung’s appointed counsel filed an unopposed motion for sentence reduction. 

But Phung, who maintains he was wrongfully convicted, filed a pro se objection, 

arguing he didn’t want a sentence reduction or appointed counsel because these 

actions would legitimize his conviction. Nonetheless, the district court granted the 

sentence reduction, decreasing Phung’s sentence to 87 months, and by separate order, 

 

curing the non-jurisdictional signature defect in the initial notice. See Becker v. 

Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 765-66 (2001) (holding that failure to sign a timely 

notice of appeal can be cured after the deadline to file the notice). 

Appellate Case: 16-6267 Document: 01019785952 Date Filed: 03/28/2017 Page: 2 
3 

ruled Phung’s motion to dismiss his appointed counsel was moot. Phung was then 

released from prison and is no longer in custody. 

Although Phung’s appeal notices indicate that he appeals from the denial of 

his objections to the appointment of counsel and sentence reduction, his appellate 

briefs fail to challenge either of those orders. Instead, Phung asserts arguments 

challenging his conviction. But collateral attacks on a conviction aren’t permitted 

under § 3582(c)(2)’s limited relief. See United States v. Gay, 771 F.3d 681, 686 

(10th Cir. 2014) (holding that “[§] 3582(c)(2) proceedings are ‘narrow’ in scope and 

authorize ‘only a limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentence’” (quoting Dillon 

v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010)). Further, by not arguing the claims he 

raises in his appeal notices, Phung has waived those claims. See Kabba v. Mukasey, 

530 F.3d 1239, 1248 n.5 (10th Cir. 2008). 

The district court’s orders are affirmed. The government’s motion to dismiss 

is denied as moot. 

Entered for the Court 

Nancy L. Moritz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 16-6267 Document: 01019785952 Date Filed: 03/28/2017 Page: 3