NOT PRECEDENT IAL UNITED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIRC UI T N o. 07- 3400 UN IT ED ST AT ES OF AME RICA

v. PETER CHUN NAM YEUNG ,

A ppe llant

N o. 07- 3478 UN IT ED ST AT ES OF AME RICA

v. WAI LEUNG CHU,

A ppe llant On Appeal from

the United State s District Court for the D istrict of Ne w Jer sey District Court N os. 06-cr- 0065 6-1 & 06-cr-00656-2 District Judge: The H onorable Jerom e B. Sim andle Subm itted Pursuant to Third Circuit L .A .R. 34.1(a)

Marc h 12 , 201 0 Befo re: AMBRO, SM ITH, and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges

(F ile d: M ar ch29, 201 0)B eca us e w e w r i t e onl y for t he par t i es , w e w i l l not s et for t h t he fa ct s at l engt h. 1 2 OPINION

SMI TH, Ci rc uit

J udge . These a ppeals arising from

a single crim inal trial we re c onso lidated so th at the Governm ent could file a single Respons e Br ief. Bec ause the fac ts and issu es raised ar e sim ilar, we will consider these appeals together. I . T his c as e ar ose out

of am ult i- y ear inv es tig at ionby lawe nf or ce m en t a ge nts int o an e la

bor at e sc he m e to i m

port c igare tte s be ar ing c ount er fe it tr ad em ar ks i nto the United States w ithou t pay ing th e re quired duti es and to dist ribute them through out th e U nited States and Canada. Pete r Chun Nam Ye ung (“ Ye ung”), 1 W ai L eung C hu ( “ Chu” ), a nd o the rs w er e ch ar ge d inCo unt 1 of the ind ic tm en t w ithc onsp ir ing to sm

uggl e the c igare tte s in to the U nit ed S ta te s, to tr af

fi c in g oods be ar ing c ount er fe it tr ad em ar ks, a nd t o tr af

fi c in c ontra

ba nd c igare tte s invio la tio n of 18 U . S. C. § 37 1. Y eung w as a lso c ha rg ed in Co unt s 2 thr ough5 w ith subs tanti ve c ount s of

tr af fi ck ing in good s be ar ing c ount er fe it tr ad em ar ks i n violatio n of 18 U. S. C. § 232 0(a) and 18 U. S. C. § 2. Chu w as addition ally chargedA cas e cont ai ns 50 car t ons of ci gar et t es , w hi ch have 10 packs of 20 ci gar et t es 2 eac h. 3 onl y in Co unt 3. E vid en ce a t tri al e sta

bli she d th at

Y eung m et

w ithc oc onsp ir at or s and unde rc ove r ag en ts o n nu m er ous oc ca sio ns t o arr an ge f or shi pm en ts o f the ci ga re tte s. O n on e oc ca sio n, Co K an h T an g ( “ T an g” ), the le ad er of the co nspi ra cy , se nt Y eung t o C an ad a as his de sig ne e to arr an ge f or ashi pm en t of cigarettes. Y eung represented him self as T ang’ s partner at this m eeting. T he j ury al so h eard

Y eung’ s po st- ar

re st s ta te m en t, r ec ount ed by A ge nt E gbe rt , w he re in Y eung a cknow le dge d th at he w as pa id b y

a c oc onsp ir at or

f or his part in the sc he m e, a nd that Y eung kne whe w as w orkin g w ithc igare tte s be ar ing c ount er fe it m ar ks. Mo re ove r, the j ur

y sawvid eo s of

Y eung’ s part ic ipa tio n invari ous m ee tin gs i n f

urthe ranc e of

the c onsp ir ac y

a nd o f him

loa din g and u nlo ad ing the ci ga re tte s. Chu w as im

pli ca te d inthe c onsp ir ac y w he n he c al le d C hic he ri n L ee to he lp him dispo se of som e of the cigar ettes. A load of a bout 107 cases of cigarettes 2 w as sto re d inaw ar eh ouse , a nd T an g or de re d C hu t o ge t r id o f the m . C hu f ound a buy er and asked Lee to r ent a truck and m ove the cigarettes fr om the warehouse, w hic h he did . L ee be cam e a G ove rn m en t w itn es s a t tri al . Af ter the close of the G overnm ent’ s case-in-c hief, Ye ung m oved for aT h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h i s c a s e u n d e r 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 2 3 1 . We 3 have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he convi ct i on and s ent ence under 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). 4 j udgm en t of

a cquit ta l un de r Fe de ra l R ule of Cr im ina l P ro ce dur e 29. T ha t m oti on w as de nie d. T he j ur

y r et ur ne d ave rd ic t of

gui lty a s to Co unt s 1, 3, a nd 5 f or Yeu ng , no t g ui lt y

on Co un ts 2 an d 4 , and gu il ty for Ch u o n C ou nt s 1 an d 3 . At their separate sentencing h earings, the D istrict Court im posed on each a

two-level ro le e nhanc em en t ba se d onit s f ind ing that Y eung and C hu w er e both m an ag er s or supe rv iso rs of

the sc he m e unde r § 3B 1. 1( c) of the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s. Y eung an d C hu a

ppe al . 3 II. A . Y eung f ir st c ha lle nge s th e D istri ct Co urt’ s de nia l of

his m oti on f

or a cquit ta l, ma d e a f t e r t h e c l o s e o f

t h e G o v e rn me n t ’s c a s e - i n - c h i e f . We r e v i e wc l a i ms ch al le ngi ng the suf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce “ to d et er

m ine w he the r, a ft er

vie w ing th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p ro se cu ti on , anyr at ion al tr ie r of fa ct c oul d have f

ound the e sse nti al e le m en ts o f the c ri m e be y ond a re as ona ble doub t.” U

nit ed Sta tes v . Ki ng , 272 F . 3d 3 66, 370 ( 3d C ir . 200 1) ( quot at ion om it te d) . Our rev ie w is pl en ary. U nit ed Sta tes v . B ornm an , 559 F . 3d 1 50, 152 ( 3d Ci r. 20 09 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . After r ev ie win g t he ev id en ce fr om th e tr ia l, we co nc lu de th ata reas on ab le jury co ul d h av e co nv ic te d Yeu ng of t he se ch arg es .5

T he re fo re , w e w ill a ff

irm the D istri ct

Co urt’ s de nia l of

Y eung’ s m oti on f

or ac qui tta l. Ye ung also challenges the District Court’ s im posit ion of a two-level enhancem ent for being a m anager or supervisor under § 3B1.1(c) . Factual fin di ng s re le va nt to th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es are re vi ewedforcle ar erro r. United States v. G rier , 475 F. 3d 55 6, 570 (3d Cir. 2007 ) (e n banc). W e w ill not d isturb them unless we ar e “ left w ith the definite and firm conviction that a m istake has been com m itted.” Id

. ( quot ing Co nc re te P ipe & P rods . of Ca l. , I nc . v . Co nstr. La bore rs P en sio n T

rus t f or S . Ca l. , 508 U . S. 602 , 622 ( 1993 )) . W e ex er ci se pl en ary rev ie w ov er t he Dis tri ctCo ur t’s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e g ui de li ne s. Id . A tw o-level aggravating role enhancem ent is war ranted if the D istrict Court finds bya preponderance of the evidence that the defendant wa s “ an organizer, le ad er , m an ag er , or

sup er vis or in an y c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty ” tha t di d no t i nvol ve f ive or m or e pa rt ic ipants a nd w as not oth er w ise e xte nsi ve . U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 1( c) . T he D istri ct Co urt’ s f ind ing that Y eung w as am an ag er or sup er vis or w as not c le ar ly er ro ne ous. Whil e Y eung w as not c oe qua l w ithT an g inhis r ole in the of fe nse s, the D istri ct Co urt’ s f ind ing that Y eung a ct ed

a s T an g’ s partne r fo r the Cana dam ee tin g wa s s o u n d . F u rt h er , we fi n dn o erro r i nt h e D i s t ri ct Co u rt ’s re je ct i o n o f Y eu n g ’s ar gum en t tha t he w as am er e “ gof er ” in c oor din at ing the shi pm en ts and c au sin g the loa din g and unlo ad ing of the c igare tte s.6

Finally , Y eung argues that the District Court failed to adequately consider t h e f a c t o r s i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) i n f a s h i o n i n g t h e s e n t e n c e . We r e v i e w“a se nt en ce fo r rea so na bl en es s wi th reg ardto th e fac to rs set for th in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). ” U

nit ed Sta tes v . B unga r , 478 F . 3d 5 40, 542 ( 3d C ir . 200 7) ( ci ta tio n om it te d) . This am ou nt s t o abu se -o f-d is cret io n re vi ew. Gall v. United States , 552 U . S. 38, 51 ( 2007 ). W e fi nd n o a buse of dis cr et ionin the se nte nc e im pose d and w i l l a f f i rm. B . Chu challenges the two-level enhancem ent im posed on him

under § 3B 1. 1( c) of

the gui de lin es a s am an ag er or sup er vis or . C hu w as he ld r es pons ibl e ba se d onthe dis posa l on ly of the 107 c as es of

c igare tte s. T o a cc om

pli sh this ta sk, Chu recr uited Lee to m ove the cigarettes, found a buy er f or them , and directed Le e to the buy er. Chu wa s no m ere m essage-taker. W e see no er ror in the two-le vel ro l e e n h an ce m en t . F o r t h e s ame r ea s o n , we s ee n o erro r i n t h e D i s t ri ct Co u rt ’s de nia l of adow nw ar d a dj ustm en t f or am iti ga tin g r ole und er

§ 3B 1. 2 of

the gui de lin es . III . W e w ill a ff

irm the j udgm en ts o f the D istri ct Co urt a ga ins t Y eung and C hu.