UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4593

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KHEUNGKHAM VONGPHAKDY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (3:21-cr-00184-KDB-DSC-1)

Submitted: August 31, 2023 Decided: October 12, 2023

Before AGEE and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: John G. Baker, Federal Public Defender, Jared P. Martin, Assistant Federal 

Public Defender, Ann L. Hester, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE 

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King, 

United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4593 Doc: 38 Filed: 10/12/2023 Pg: 1 of 5
2

PER CURIAM:

A federal jury convicted Kheungkham Vongphakdy of unlawful procurement of 

naturalization, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a). The district court sentenced 

Vongphakdy to four months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Vongphakdy challenges the 

district court’s decision to admit evidence that he alleges was obtained in violation of 

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), as well as the denial of his motion to suppress 

evidence of a prior guilty plea he entered in state court because he asserts that his counsel 

in the state court proceedings rendered ineffective assistance. We affirm.

Vongphakdy first argues that the district court reversibly erred by allowing the 

Government to introduce evidence obtained in violation of Miranda regarding his ability 

to respond to an English-language interrogation. “[T]he Fifth Amendment guarantees that 

‘[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’” 

United States v. Khweis, 971 F.3d 453, 459 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. 

V). “Recognizing that the pressure and isolation inherent in custodial interrogation could 

overcome the resilience of a suspect otherwise not inclined to incriminate himself, the 

Supreme Court in Miranda instituted measures to [e]nsure that the right against 

compulsory self-incrimination is protected.” Id. (cleaned up). “Thus, unless a defendant 

is advised of his Fifth Amendment rights pursuant to Miranda and voluntarily waives those 

rights, statements he makes during a custodial interrogation must be suppressed.” United 

States v. Azua-Rinconada, 914 F.3d 319, 325 (4th Cir. 2019). 

We discern no error by the district court. “To qualify for the Fifth Amendment 

privilege, a communication must be testimonial, incriminating, and compelled.” Hiibel v. 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4593 Doc: 38 Filed: 10/12/2023 Pg: 2 of 5
3

Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Nev., 542 U.S. 177, 189 (2004). The Fifth Amendment privilege

against self-incrimination thus only protects a defendant from being compelled to provide 

“testimonial” evidence, meaning that the communication “must itself, explicitly or 

implicitly, relate a factual assertion or disclose information.” United States v. Oriakhi, 57 

F.3d 1290, 1299 (4th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, the Supreme 

Court has explicitly distinguished between “the use of compulsion to extort 

communications from a defendant” and merely “compelling a person to engage in conduct

that may be incriminating,” such as providing samples of one’s voice, handwriting, or 

physical appearance, all of which are constitutionally permissible. United States v. 

Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 34-35 (2000). We conclude that the language spoken by a person 

during otherwise privileged communications, while potentially incriminating, does not, by 

itself, “relate a factual assertion or disclose information” and that it is therefore not 

testimonial evidence subject to suppression under Miranda. See Oriakhi, 57 F.3d at 1299; 

see also Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 590-99 (1990) (noting that impaired 

defendant’s slurring of his speech in response to questions during interrogation was 

incriminating but not testimonial where the incriminating nature of that fact was not based 

on content of his answers). 

In any event, admission of a defendant’s statement obtained in violation of Miranda

does not mandate a new trial if “the admission of the statement at issue was harmless 

beyond a reasonable doubt, such that it is clear that a rational fact finder would have found 

the defendant guilty absent the error.” United States v. Giddins, 858 F.3d 870, 885 (4th 

Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the Miranda context, factors relevant to

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4593 Doc: 38 Filed: 10/12/2023 Pg: 3 of 5
4

harmlessness include: “(1) the importance of the statement to the government’s case; 

(2) the impact on credibility of other evidence; and (3) the admission of prejudicial 

evidence based solely on the admission of the statement.” Id. at 886 (citing Arizona v. 

Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 297-300 (1991)). Even assuming that a Miranda violation 

occurred, we conclude that the Government has met its burden to establish “that the 

admission of the [statement] did not contribute to [Vongphakdy’s] conviction.” 

Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 296. 

Turning to Vongphakdy’s remaining claim, when considering a district court’s 

denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we review factual findings for clear error and legal 

conclusions de novo. United States v. Pulley, 987 F.3d 370, 376 (4th Cir. 2021). Guilty 

pleas are ordinarily “presumed to be valid,” as they are “protected by a strong presumption 

. . . of regularity.” United States v. Locke, 932 F.3d 196, 199 (4th Cir. 2019). Further, “a 

trial for a subsequent offense” is ordinarily “not the appropriate forum to assess the validity 

of [a] prior conviction.” United States v. Anglin, 284 F.3d 407, 410 (2d Cir. 2002). While 

Vongphakdy contends that he should have been permitted to challenge the admission of 

his state court guilty plea because his state counsel allegedly provided constitutionally 

ineffective assistance under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 

356 (2010), we conclude that Vongphakdy’s claim was not cognizable in his federal 

prosecution, cf. Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 494, 496-97 (1994); see also 

Mondragon v. Holder, 706 F.3d 535, 543-44 (4th Cir. 2013) (holding Custis barred 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4593 Doc: 38 Filed: 10/12/2023 Pg: 4 of 5
5

challenge to prior conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in removal 

proceedings).

*

 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* We “may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record,” notwithstanding the 

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Riley, 856 F.3d 326, 328 (4th Cir. 2017)

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4593 Doc: 38 Filed: 10/12/2023 Pg: 5 of 5