2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-8-2010

USA v. Bonthan Eirng

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-4595

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Bonthan Eirng" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1777.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1777
Honorable A. Wallace Tashima, Senior Judge of the United *

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by

designation.

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-4595

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 v.

BONTHAN EIRNG,

 Appellant

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 2-05-cr-00069-001)

District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno

 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

February 10, 2010

Before: SLOVITER, ROTH, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges *

(Filed: March 8, 2010)

 

OPINION

 
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1

§ 3231. We have jurisdiction to review this matter pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1291.

2

SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Bonthan Eirng pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to

distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base (“crack cocaine”), in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). He was sentenced to 240 months imprisonment by the

District Court. His counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel accompanied by a 1

brief in support of that motion pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Under Anders, if, after review of the district court record and a conscientious

investigation, counsel is convinced that the appeal presents no issue of arguable merit,

counsel may properly ask to withdraw while filing a brief referring to anything in the

record that might arguably support the appeal. Id. at 741-42, 744. Anders requires that

appellant’s counsel must “satisfy the court that he or she has thoroughly scoured the record

in search of appealable issues” and then “explain why the issues are frivolous.” United

States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778, 780 (3d Cir. 2000). “The Court’s inquiry when counsel

submits an Anders brief is thus twofold [to determine]: (1) whether counsel adequately

fulfilled [Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 109.2(a)’s] requirements[,] and (2) whether

an independent review of the record presents any nonfrivolous issues.” United States v.

Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001).
3

I.

In October 2004, Philadelphia police executed a search warrant at 194 W. Chew

Avenue. During the search, officers observed Eirng throwing large chunks of what they

later determined was crack cocaine from an open window in his second floor bedroom. 

Officers immediately apprehended Eirng and recovered from his bedroom large quantities

of bulk cocaine base, numerous packets of crack cocaine, about $4,646 in cash, and

several items of drug paraphernalia. Officers discovered a total 232 grams of crack

cocaine in Eirng’s home.

Eirng was thereafter charged in an indictment with one count of possession of more

than fifty grams of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §

841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). The government subsequently filed an information under 21

U.S.C. § 851 setting forth Eirng’s prior conviction of a felony drug offense. As a result of

the prior conviction, Eirng’s mandatory minimum sentence was increased from ten years

to twenty years imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).

The parties entered into a guilty plea agreement in which Eirng admitted that he

possessed 232 grams of crack cocaine with the intent to distribute. At the sentencing

hearing, the District Court adopted the findings of the PSR that Eirng’s offense level was

31 and that he was in a criminal history category of II. This would produce an advisory

sentencing range of 121-151 months. However, as the District Court pointed out, this

range was subsumed by the “statutory, mandatory minimum of 20 years.” J.T. App. at 24. 
4

On that basis, the District Court sentenced Eirng to 240 months. Eirng appeals.

II.

In March 2009, Eirng’s counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that no meritorious

issues existed on appeal, and the Government filed a brief in agreement. Thereafter, Eirng

filed a pro se brief, arguing that “the District Court [e]rred when [it] failed to reduce [his]

sentence pursuant to the Sentencing Commission’s Amendment (706) to the Crack

Cocaine Guidelines.” Appellant’s Informal Br. at 7. Eirng’s reference to Amendment 706

of the Sentencing Guidelines, by which the Sentencing Commission reduced the offense

levels for many crack cocaine offenses, does not set forth a non-frivolous issue for review

for two reasons. 

First, whether a retroactive guideline amendment is applicable to a particular

sentence cannot be raised in a direct appeal, but rather only in a proceeding under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Second, inasmuch as Eirng was sentenced to a mandatory minimum

term of imprisonment based on a prior drug felony, his sentence is unaffected by any

guideline amendment. See United States v. Doe, 564 F.3d 305, 309 (3d Cir. 2009)

(holding a statutory minimum sentence unaffected by Amendment 706).

III.

For the reasons above, we will affirm the sentence and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.