2010 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 9-14-2010 

# U SA v . Huy L uong P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 09-3435

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Huy Luon g " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 616. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/616NOT 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 o. 09- 3435

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. HUY T RO NG L UONG, A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 1- 09- cr - 00232- 001) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J e ro m e B . S im a n d le

____________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember 14, 2010 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , F IS H E R a n d G A R T H , C i r cui tJudges .

Fi l ed: Sept ember 14, 2010

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . D efe ndantH uyT r ong L uong ( “Luong”) pl ed gui l t yi n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s eyt o t w o count s of bank r obberyi n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 2113( a) . T he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a s ent ence of 144 m ont hs of2

im p riso n m e n t, fro m w h ich L u o n g n o w a p p e a ls. F o r th e re a so n s s tate d h e re in , w e w ill aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence . I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yfort he part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t or yof t hi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor t h onl yt hos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. B etw een J anuary11, 2008, and M ay5, 2008, L uong r obbed orat t empt ed t o r ob ni ne banks i n N ew J er s eyand C onnect i cut . T w o s epar at e i ndi ct m ent s – one i n N ew J er s eyand one i n C onnect i cut– w er e fi l ed cha r gi ng L uong w i t h t he r obber i es . T he i ndi ct m ent s w er e then cons ol i dat ed i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N e w J e r s e y. O n M ar ch 31, 2009, L uong pl ed gui l t y , pur s uantt o a w r i t t en pl ea a gr eement , t o a o n e -c o u n t in f

o rm a tio n c h a rg in g h im w ith th e ro b b e ryo f a C o m m e rc e B a n k in B e rg e n f ield , N e w Je rse ya n d to o n e c o u n t o f a th re e -c o u n t in d ictm e n t ch a rg in g h im w ith t he r obberyof a W achovi a B ank i n G r eenw i ch, C onnect i cut . A thi s pl ea he ar i ng, L uong ackn ow l edg ed h i s r ob bing or at t em pti ng t o rob sev en ad dit i on al ban ks. T h e p lea a g ree m en t con tem p lat ed a b ase o ff en se lev el of

3 0 , b u t pro v ided fo r a 3- l evel r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yand t i m el ynot i fi cat i on of i nt entt o pl ead gui l t y , r es ul t i ng i n an off ens e l evel of 27. T he part i es agr eed nott o s eek de par tur es fr om th is o f f e n se lev e l, an d a g re e d th a t “a se n ten c e w ith in th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e th a t re su ltsT he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have 1 j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) and 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 3 fr om t he agr eed t ot al G ui del i nes offe ns e l evel of 27 i s r eas onabl e. ” ( A pp. 207. ) T he pl ea agr eementdi d nots peci fyw hatcr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryw oul d appl yt o L uong. In L u o n g ’s pre sen tenc e re p o rt , the p rob ati o n o ff ice d eterm ined that L u o n g ’s c rim in a l h isto ry , w h ich in c lu d e d p rio r c o n v ictio n s f o r p o ss e ss io n o f

c ra c k c o c a in e w ith in ten t to d istrib u te a n d a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt, m a d e L u o n g a c a re e r o f f e n d e r p u rsu a n t to U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 1. U nd er the G uidel i nes, careeroff end er s t atus el evated L uo ng ’s off ense leve l t o 2 9 an d incre ase d h is cri m inal h ist o ryca tego ryfro m IV to V I. A tL uong’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng, he di d notdi s put e the appl i cabi l i t yof t he ca r eer offe nders t atus , butar gued thathe s houl d be s ent ence d bas ed on the G ui del i nes r ange of 100- 125 m ont hs t hatcorr es ponded w i t h t he l ow ercr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof I V and the o f f e n se lev e l o f

2 7 c o n tain e d in th e p lea a g re e m e n t. T h e D istric t C o u rt, i n a n e f f o rt to honort he s pi r i tof t he pl ea a gr eement , s ent ence d L uong as i f hi s offe ns e l evel w er e 27; how ever , t he C our tr eas oned thatt he cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof V I w as appr opr i at e and there fo re se n tenc ed L u o n g to 1 4 4 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t bas ed o n a c ri m inal h ist o ry cat egoryof V I and an of fens e l evel of 27. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. 14 II. I n i m pos i ng a s ent ence , a di s t r i ctcour tm us tcal cul at e the advi s or yG ui del i nes s ent ence , for m al l yrul e on the mot i ons of bot h par t i es and s t at e w hetheri ti s gr ant i ng a departur e and how t hatdepartur e af fec t s t he G ui del i nes cal cul at i on, and cons i dert he re le v a n t 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs . S e e U

n itedS ta tes v . A li , 5 0 8 F . 3 d 1 3 6 , 1 4 2 (3d C ir . 2007) . Sent ence s ar e r evi ew ed forr eas onabl enes s , w hi ch i s as s es s ed by“w hethert he rec o rd a s a w h o le reflec ts r ati o n al an d m ea n ing fu l con side rati o n o f th e f ac tors enumer at ed i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 4 7 5 F . 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 7 1 (3d C ir . 2007) ( en banc ) . T he “meani ngful cons i der at i on” thatw e l ook foron appel l at e r evi ew does notr equi r e di s cus s i on of eve r yar gum entadvanc ed bya l i t i gant ; t he r ecor d need onl yr efl ectt hatt he courtcons i der ed the appr opr i at e fa ct or s and anym er i t or i ous a rg u m e n t r a is e d b yth e p a rt ie s . See U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). O n appea l , L uong ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tcomm i t t ed pr ocedur al err orby al l egedl yfai l i ng t o addr es s hi s ar gum ent s forw hyt he ca r eeroffe nderenhanc ement s houl d notappl yt o hi m . Speci fi cal l y , L uong cont ends fi r s tt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d not res po nd t o h i s ar gu m ent that car eer offen der st atus w as i ntended t o d et er a di fferent cl ass o f c rim in a l o f

f e n d e rs, a n d se c o n d th a t th e C o u rt’s r e a so n in g im p ro p e rlyf o c u se d o n h is r ece nts t r i ng of bank r obber i es and noton t he pr i orconvi ct i ons t hatr es ul t ed i n hi s car eer5

offe nders t atus . B eca us e thes e ar gum ent s ar e pl ai nl ycontr aryt o t he r ecor d, w e r ej ect t h e m. O urr evi ew of t he r ecor d r evea l s t hought ful and thor ough cons i der at i on byt he D i s t r i ctC our tof ea ch ar gum entr ai s ed byL uong. A s t o t he fi r s tar gum ent , L uong r ai s ed a fa ci al chal l enge t o t he ca r eeroffe ndergui del i nes on t he gr ounds t hatt he C om m i s s i on w as act i ng out s i de of i t s expert i s e and s t atut or yauthor i t yi n expandi ng t he appl i cat i on of the c are er o ff

en d er status to in d ividu als su ch as h im self. In resp o n se, t h e D istri ct C o u rt not ed Luong’s ar gum entt hat“the G ui del i ne i t s el f i s fl aw ed” butconcl uded: I fi nd t hatthe ca r eeroffe nderG ui del i ne s etfor t h i n 4B 1. 1 . . . i s not i r r at i onal and does notoffe nd t he mandat e thatt he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on i s cal l ed upon t o ful fi l l . . . . T he part i cul arm andat e fr om C ongr es s fort he stric t se n ten c in g o f

in d iv id u a ls th a t f

a ll w ith in th is c a teg o ryis c o n tain e d in S ect i on 99 4(h), t he S up rem e C ou rthas i nterpret ed as un am biguou s and ca se aft ercas e has uphel d t he ava i l abi l i t yof s uch an e nhance m entfor app ropri at e si tuati on s. ( A pp. 49. ) T he D i s t r i ctC our tcl ear l ycons i der ed and r ej ect ed thi s ar gum ent , and no pr ocedur al fl aw i s pr es enti n i t s r eas oni ng. Second, L uong cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pr oper l yfocus ed on hi s pr es ent offe ns es – i ncl udi ng t he ac tual and att empt ed bank r obber i es t o w hi ch he a dm i t t ed butof w hi ch he w as notconvi ct ed – as oppos ed t o hi s pr i orconvi ct i ons i n det er m i ni ng w het her h e wa s t h e t yp e o f

c r i mi n a l t o wh i c h t h e c a r e e ro f f e n d e rs t a tu s s h o u l d a p p l y . Ag a i n , we fi nd t hi s cont ent i on fl at l ycontr aryt o t he r ecor d. T he D i s t r i ctC our tr eas oned that“[o] ne of t he fa ct or s t hatt he ca r eeroffe nders t atus i s s eeki ng t o pr edi cti s t he pr os pectof6

rec idivism . ” (A p p . 3 2 . ) T h e C o u rtthen sp ec ifi ca ll yco n side red w h ethe r L u o n g ’s en ti re cr i m i nal hi s t or ydemonst r at ed a pa t t ern of r eci di vi s m , and conc l uded thati tdi d: I t ’ s a ca s e w her e ca r eeroffe nders t atus appea r s t o be appr opr i at e . . . not onl yt he t echni cal s ens e thathe has t he pr edi cat e convi ct i ons , butal s o t he r eal l i fe s ens e thathe i ndeed s har es t he cha r act er i s t i cs of ca r eeroffe nder w i t h ot heri ndi vi dual s w ho r eci di vi s m i s w el l - document ed and pr edi ct abl e. I have c ons i der ed w hetherhi s t w o pr edi cat e cr i m es ar e s er i ous enough that t heys houl d be ca l l ed upon t o pul l t hi s amount of fr ei ght . A nd t heyar e, t h e y q u a l i f

y a g a i n n o to n l y t e c h n i c a l l y b u ta l s o i n a c tu a l i t y. ( A pp. 51- 52. ) R egar dl es s of Luong’s ar gum ent s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed the ext ent of h i s m ore r ecent bank robberyspree, t he C ou rtcl earl yst at ed thathis predi cat e cri m es – t he drug offe ns e and the aggr avat ed as s aul t– w er e themsel ves enough t o j us t i fycar eer offe nders t atus . W e s ee no pr ocedur al fl aw i n t hi s r eas oni ng. III . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e se n ten c e o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.