2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-9-2009 

# U SA v . Le P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3254

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . L e " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 693. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/693Honora ble Richard G . Stearns, United States District Judge f or the District of * Massac husetts, sitt ing by

designation. 1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_________ N os . 08- 2414 /07- 3254

_________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . M I CH AE L NGUYE N, THU Y A . LE A pp el l ants

___________________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia N os . 04- cr - 00767- 15 /04- cr - 00767- 22 (D istri ct Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le P au l S. D iam o n d )

___________________ S u b m itted P u rsua n t t o T h ir d C ir cu itL A R 3 4 . 1 (a)

A pr i l 13, 2009 B e f o re : M c K E E , S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges a n d S T E AR NS , D is tr i ct Judge . * (F il ed S ep tem b er 8 , 2 0 0 9 )2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT M cK ee, C i r cui tJ udge, M icha el N g u y en an d T h u yL e b o th ap p ea l th e re sp ec ti v e se n tenc es th at w ere i m pos ed af

t ert heyw er e convi ct ed of c ons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e 100 ki l ogr ams orm or e of ma r i j u a n a . F o rt h e r e a s o n s t h a tf o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I. T he fi r s tof N guy en’ s s ever al ar gum ent s i s thatthe di s t r i ctcour ts houl d have g ra n ted h is m o tio n to d ism iss h is in d ictm e n t b a se d o n v io latio n s o f th e S p e e d yT ria l A c t, 1 8 U. S . C. § § 3 1 6 1 - 3 1 7 4 , a n d t h e I n t e r s t a t e Ag r e e me n to n De t a i n e r s ( “ I AD” ) , 1 8 U. S . C. A pp. § 2. W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s l egal concl us i ons de novo, and fa ctual fi ndi ngs a re re v ie w e d f

o r c le a r e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. D ent , 1 4 9 F .3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). Fi r s t , w e not e thatN guy en’ s cl ai m bas ed on the I A D m us tfai l , s i nce the r i ght s pr ovi ded fori n t he agr eementar e tr i gger ed onl yw hen a de t ai nerhas been f i l ed bythe r eques t i ng ju ri s d ic tio n b a s e d o n p e n d in g c h a rg e s a g a in s t th e p ri s o n e r. U nited S tates v. Mau ro , 436 U . S. 340, 343 ( 1978) . H er e, t he di s t r i ctcour tj udge i s s ued a w r i tof habe as corpus ad t e s t i f i c a n d u m f

o rh i m t o t e s t i f

yb e f o r e a g r a n d j u ry , a n d th u s a tth e t i me Ng u y e n c l a i ms t here w as a vi olat i on of h i s I A D ri gh t s there w ere no “u ntr i ed indi ct m ents , i nfo rm at i on s, o r c o m p la in ts ” a g a in s t h im a s re q u ir e d b yth e IA D .3

In a d d iti o n , a d e f

e n d a n t m a yw a iv e h is rig h t to a sp e e d ytrial w ith o u t ex p licitly s ta tin g a d e s ir e to d o s o . See , N e w Y o rk v . Hill , 528 U . S. 110, 114 ( 2000) ( hol di ng that w her e def

ens e couns el agr eed t o a tr i al dat e bey ond t he 180 dayl i m i ti m pos ed bythe I A D , defe ndant ’ s r i ght s undert he I A D w er e dee m ed t o be w ai ved) . H er e, the def endant ag ree d to a c o m p lex c ase d esig n ati o n , w h ich n ec essa ri lytoll s the S p ee d yT ri al cloc k . In a d d iti o n , the d e f

e n d a n t re q u e ste d a n d w a s g ra n ted a c o n tin u a n c e o f th e trial in o rd e r to l ocat e an e s s ent i al w i t nes s . T her efor e, N guy en w ai ved anyr i ght s he mayot herw i s e have h a d u n d e rt h e S p e e d y T r i a l A c ta n d t h e I A D d o e s n o ta p p l y. II . N g u y e n ’s n e x t ar g u m e n t is th a t th e d istric t co u rt c o m m itt e d e rro r in its s uppl ement al j ur yi ns t ruct i ons byfai l i ng t o pr oper l yr es pond t o t w o ques t i ons pos ed byt he j ur ydur i ng del i ber at i ons . B eca us e N guy en fa i l ed t o obj ectt o t he j udge’ s s uppl ement al ju ry in s tru c tio n s , w e re v ie w o n ly f o r p la in e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. A nt i co , 275 F. 3d 245, 2 6 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ), cer t . deni ed , 53 7 U . S . 82 1 (200 2). N gu y en argu es that the fir st ques t i on- “C an y ou pr ovi de a s um m aryof the amount s , pounds of m ar i j uana 100 ki l os ?”- s houl d have be en i nt erpr et ed as a r eques tfora t abl e t o as s i s tthe j uryi n convert i ng pounds in to k ilo g ra m s. H o w e v e r, th e ju d g e a n d c o u n se l f o r b o th sid e s u n d e rsto o d th is q u e stio n to be a r eques tfora s um m aryof the evi dence . C ouns el and the j udge agr eed nott o pr ovi de a n e v id e n tiary su m m a ry . R a th e r, th e ju ryw a s re m in d e d o f its o b lig a tio n to d e lib e ra te b a s e d u p o n e a c h ju ro r’ s re c o lle c tio n o f th e e v id e n c e .In additi on , Third Circuit Mo de l Criminal Jur

y Ins tr uc tio n 3 .1 6 s tate s: “Yo u s ho uld 1 never consider thepossible punishment in reachingyour verdict.” 4 W e s ee no r eas on t o concl ude thatthe j uryw as actual l yr eques t i ng a conve r s i on i nt o pounds , and the j ur ydi d notat t empt t o cl ar i fythe court ’ s r es pons e i n anym annert hat w o u ld su g g est th e k ind o f m isun d erstan d ing that N g u y en n o w h yp o thes izes. M o reo v er, d u rin g c lo sin g a rg u m e n t th e p ro se c u to r to ld th e ju ryth a t 1 0 0 k ilo g ra m s w a s e q u a l to appr oxi m at el y225 pounds . T he j ur yi ns t ruct i ons expl ai ned the nee d foreac h j ur ort o be convi nced of

t he def endant ’ s gui l tbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . A nyuncert ai ntyabout w h e th e r q u a n tityh a d b e e n p ro v e d w o u ld th e re f o re h a v e e n u re d to th e d e f e n d a n t’s b e n e f

it. T h e j u r ya l s o a s k e d : “ I s t h e 1 0 0 k i l o g r a m a mo u n tl e g a l l ys i g n i f i c a n t ? I f s o , c a n we know how orw hy ?”. T he courtpr oper l yi ns truct ed the j urythatthe amountw as a l egal m at t ernotfori t s cons i der at i on. N guy en ar gues thatthe j uryw as ent i t l ed t o know the sign ifi ca n ce o f th e 1 0 0 k il o g ram s b ec au se itis an elem en t of the o ff en se. W h il e the jury w as r equi r ed t o det erm i ne w hether N guy en cons pi r ed t o di s t r i but e 100 ki l ogr ams of m ar i j uana, t her e w as no r equi r ementthati tbe i nform ed of the s ent enci ng cons equenc es th a t w o u ld re su lt fro m th a t f in d in g . A c o n tra ryru le w o u ld im p ro p e rlyo p e n th e d o o r to a llo w in g ju ro rs to b a s e a v e rd ic t o n s e n te n c in g c o n s e q u e n c e s . See , R ogers v. U ni t ed Stat es , 422 U . S. 35, 40 ( 1975) ( “[T] he j uryha[s ] no s ent enci ng funct i on and s houl d r eac h i t s ver di ctw i t houtr egar d t o w hats ent ence m i ghtbe i m pos ed. ”) . T her efor e, w e fi nd no 1 e rr o r i n th e ju d g e ’s s u p p le m e n ta l ju ry in s tru c tio n s . II I.5

N g u y en also ch all en g es th e su ff ici en cyo f th e e v iden ce . H e f ir st co n tend s tha t th ere w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o convi cthi m of bei ng a cons pi r at oras oppos ed t o an in d e p e n d e n t co n tra c to r. O u r re v iew o f th e su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e is “ p a rticu lar ly defe r ent i al . ” W e w i l l s us t ai n t he ver di ct“i f anyr at i onal tr i erof fa ctcoul d have f ound t he es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” Id . ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. V oigt , 8 9 F .3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 8 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 )) (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). A drug di s t r i but i on cons pi r acyr equi r es : “( 1) a s har ed uni t yof purpos e; ( 2) an i nt ent t o achi eve a comm on goal ; and ( 3) an agr eementt o w or k t ogethert ow ar d t he goal . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. I

gl es i as , 535 F. 3d 150, 156 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. B obb , 471 F. 3d 491, 494 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . I n det erm i ni ng w hethera cons pi r acyexi s t s , cour t s have l ooked t o “the l ength of af fi l i at i on betw een the def endantand the cons pi r acy ; w hether there is an estab li sh ed m etho d o f p ay m en t; the e x tent to w h ich tran sac ti o n s are s t andar di zed; and w hethert her e i s a demonstr at ed l evel of m utual trus t . ” I gl es i as , 535 F. 3d at156 ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. G i bbs , 190 F. 3d 188, 199 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ) . N otal l of t he above fac t or s m us tbe pr es enti n or dert o fi nd a cons pi r acy - i ndeed, the pr es ence of e v e n o n e f

a c to r m a yb e s u f

f ic ie n t. Id . H er e, t he governm entpr es ent ed t es t i m onythatN guy en w as i ntr oduced t o t he Ton O r gani zat i on as s om eone w ho coul d s el l l ar ge quant i t i es of m ar i j uana. T her e w as evi dence t hathe w as aff i l i at ed w i t h t he cons pi r acyfors ever al m ont hs , and thatl i ke other co- cons pi r at or s her e he r ece i ved mar i j uana on c ons i gnm ent , us ual l ys ol d i tw i t hi n a w eek,In f a c t, t his argument i s und e rm ine d b y thete sti mony

of Phu c Vo , who state d o n c ro ss 2 that Nguyen told him that the only rea son Nguyen could not pay the $20,000 was be causethe marijuana g iven to him on consignment had been stolen from his car . In addition, we note that Ton acknowledg ed that while heonly authorized five marijuana 3 sales to Nguyen, moresales were made without his express a uthorization, and thus Ton’s 6 a n d u su a llyp a id a m e m b e r o f th e T o n O rg a n iza tio n f o r th a t m a riju a n a . T h e ju ryc o u ld have c oncl uded thatN guy en r ece i ved about$1, 000, 000 w or t h of m ar i j uana ove rthe cour s e of 15 t o 20 t r ans act i ons , and thathe pai d foral l but$20, 000 of i t . A l t hough N guy en ar gues t hathi s fai l ur e t o payfors om e of the mar i j uana i s evi dence of an a t t empt t o frust rat e t he co nspir acy , t here i s nothi ng i n the r ecord t hat s ug gest s that this w as a del i ber at e att empt t o di s ruptt he ac t i ons of the Ton O r gani zat i on. T he evi dence her e w as 2 c lea rlysu f

f icie n t to e sta b lish N g u y e n ’s m e m b e rsh ip in th e c o n sp ira c yb e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. N guy en al s o ar gues t hatt her e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence forthe j uryt o fi nd thathe c o n sp ire d to d istrib u te 1 0 0 k ilo g ra m s o r m o re o f m a riju a n a . T h a t ar g u m e n t is e q u a lly m er i t l es s . Phuc V o, one of the l eade r s of the Ton O r gani zat i on, t es t i fi ed thathe pr ovi ded N g u y e n w ith a t lea st 3 0 0 p o u n d s o f m a riju a n a o n c o n sig n m e n t, w ith th e lar g e st s in g le s a le b e in g 1 8 0 p o u n d s. N g u y e n p o in ts o u t th a t, i n c o n tra st to P h u c V o ’s te stim o n y , B e n jam in T on t es t i fi ed thatt he mosthe per s onal l ys ol d i tN guy en w as 100 pounds . N guy en ar gues t hatbeca us e of thi s confl i ct i ng t es t i m ony , no r at i onal j ur orcoul d have f ound t hathe cons pi r ed t o s el l m or e than 100 ki l ogr ams. H ow ever , the fa ctthatthe j urycr edi t ed the t es t i m onyof Phuc V o overB enj ami n T on i s notgr ounds forr ever s al . W e ca n notw ei gh 3testimony

is not necessa

rily in conflict with that of Vo.

7 t he ev i den ce or determ i ne the credi bil i t yof w i t nesses. See , U ni t ed Stat es v. Mi l l er , 527 F .3 d 5 4 , 6 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). IV . N guy en cha l l enges t he s ent ence thatw as i m pos ed on s ever al gr ounds . Fi r s t , he c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in im p o s in g a g e n e ra l s e n te n c e o f 2 6 2 m o n th s . B eca us e N guy en di d notr ai s e thi s obj ect i on befor e the s ent enci ng court , w e r evi ew for p la in e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ouch . 2 9 1 F .3 d 2 5 1 , 2 5 2 -5 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ), N guy en ci t es U n itedS ta tes v . Mo ria rty , 429 F. 3d 1012, 1025 ( 11t h C i r . 2005) , forthe pr opos i t i on t hat g e n e ra l se n ten c e s a re ill e g a l. H o w e v e r, w e h a v e re p e a ted lyh e ld th a t w h e re a d e f e n d a n t is convi ct ed on mul t i pl e count s , a gene r al s ent ence i s perm i s s i bl e as l ong as i tdoes not e x c e e d th e m a x im u m p o s s ib le s e n te n c e f o r t h e c o u n t w h ic h c a rr ie s th e g re a te s t s e n te n c e . See , U ni t ed Stat es v. X

avi er , 2 F .3 d 1 2 8 1 , 1 2 9 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. C ors on , 4 4 9 F . 2 d 5 4 4 , 5 5 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 1 ) ( en banc ); J o n e s v . Hill , 7 1 F .2 d 9 3 2 , 9 3 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 3 4 ). H e re , the g e n e ra l se n ten c e o f 2 6 2 m o n th s w a s le ss th a n th e m a x im u m p e rm iss ib le p e n a lty foranyof the count s of convi ct i on. N guy en nextar gues t hathi s s ent ence w as notr eas onabl e. A s ent ence w i l l be uphel d i f “the r ecor d as a w hol e r efl ect s r at i onal and meani ngful cons i der at i on of the fac t or s enumer at ed i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 475 F. 3d 556, 571 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( en banc ), cer t . deni ed , 128 S. C t . 106 ( 2007) . T hi s r equi r es the s ent enci ng8

j udge t o “s etfor t h enough t o s at i s fythe appe l l at e courtthathe[/ s he] has cons i der ed the par t i es ’ ar gum ent s and has a r eas oned bas i s forexer ci s i ng hi s ow n l egal deci s i on m aki ng author i t y . ” R i ta v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 1 U .S . 3 3 9 , 3 5 6 (2 0 0 7 ). H ere , the re co rd sh o w s tha t th e se n tenc ing co u rtp rop erlyca lculated the a d v isory gui del i ne r ange, cons i der ed al l r el evant§ 3553( a) fac t or s , as w el l as the s ent enci ng ar gum ent s m ade byt he part i es , and r eas onabl yappl i ed ea ch of thes e fa ct or s t o t he c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

th is c a s e . T h e ju d g e e x p la in e d in d e ta il w h y , b a s e d o n th e s e f a c to rs , a s e n te n c e a t th e b o tto m o f th e g u id e lin e ra n g e w a s re a s o n a b le .

V . C o- defe ndantL e ar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n notappl y i ng the s afe t yval ve pr ovi s i on of 18 U . S. C . § 3553( f) beca us e i tappl i ed cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s t o t he gui del i nes cal cul at i on i n a mandat oryfas hi on. H ow ever , w e nee d notr eac h t he mer i t s of L e’ s ar gum entbeca us e Le w ai ved herr i ghtt o appea l thati s s ue byexec ut i ng a val i d pl ea agr eementt hatcont ai ned an a ppel l at e w ai ver . L e does notar gue thatthe w ai verw as not e n ter e d in to k n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar ily , o r th a t o n e o f th e lim ited e x c e p tio n s c o n tain e d in t he w ai verappl i es . I ns t ead, s he ar gues thatbeca us e of the al l eged e r r orbythe di s t r i ct c o u rt , e n f

o rc in g th e a p p e lla te w a iv e r w o u ld re s u lt in a m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e . See , U

ni t ed Stat es v. Khat tak , 2 7 3 F .3 d 5 5 7 , 5 6 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (“ W a iv e rs o f a p p e a ls, if e n ter e d in to k n o w in g ly an d v o lu n ta ri ly, ar e v a lid , u n le s s th e yw o rk a m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e .” ). H o w e v e r, “ [ a ] w a iv e r o f th e ri g h t to a p p e a l in c lu d e s a w a iv e r o f th e ri g h t to a p p e a l . . .9

debat abl e l egal i s s ues - i ndeed, i ti ncl udes a w ai verof the r i ghtt o appea l bl at anterr or . ” Id . at562. T hus , even i f Le’ s ar gum enthad mer i t , enfor ci ng thi s w ai verw oul d notr es ul ti n a m is c a rr ia g e o f

ju s tic e . V I. Foral l of the above r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm ent s of convi ct i on and s e n te n c e o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt .