A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o honort he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t30,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, N o. 06- 7125 v. ( E . D . O kl ahoma) H O N G SO N N G U Y E N , al s o know n as SonnyN guy en, al s o know n as Son H ong N guy en,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . CR - 0 6 - 1 1 - 5 - H)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. H ong Son N guy en w as convi ct ed i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he E a ste rn D istric t o f

O k lah o m a o n o n e c o u n t o f c o n sp ira c yto m a n u fa c tu re w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te m e th a m p h e ta m in e , s ee 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 ; id . § 8 4 1 (a )( 1 ), (b) (1) (A ). H e w as sent enced t o 2 00 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent and 6 0 m on ths’ su p erv ised release . H e a p p ea ls his co n v ict ion , co n tend ing that the d istri ct co u rt-2-

err ed ( 1) i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s everhi s tr i al fr om thatof hi s codefendant ; ( 2) in d en y ing h is m o ti o n to su p p ress e v iden ce ; and (3) in re fu sing to instruc t th e jury on t he l es s er - i ncl uded offens e of di s tr i but i on of a l abor at or ys uppl y . W e have j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffi r m. I . BA CKGROUND M r . N guy en and fourcodefendant s w er e cha r ged i n a s even- count ind ict m en t. C o u n t I all eg ed that theyh ad co n sp ir ed to m an u fa cture m ethamphet ami ne. O ne of the al l eged ove r tact s w as t hatM r . N guy en, w ho ow ned and ope r at ed T& B E xpr es s G r oceryi n O kl ahoma C i ty , had s ol d l ar ge qu anti t i es of p seudo eph edri ne tabl et s t o T atum S orr el s, on e of h i s codefend ants . T he others i x count s i n t he i ndi ctm entchar ged onl yC l onni e Laym an, t he al l eged r i ng- l eade rof the cons pi r acy , w i th a drug offe ns e on Sept ember11, 2002, and tw o d ru g o ffe n se s a n d th re e fire a rm s o ffe n se s o n A u g u st 2 5 , 2 0 0 3 . A c c o rd in g to t he i ndi ctm ent , M r . L aym an had or gani zed the pur chas e notonl yof the ps eudoephe dr i ne, butal s o of the otheri ngr edi ent s us ed i n m aki ng m ethamphet ami ne. D ur i ng 2002 and 2003, i tal l eged, t he cons pi r acyconduct ed fr equentm anufa ctur i ng s es s i ons pr oduci ng about250 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne a t e a c h s e s s io n . O n F ebruary2, 20 06 , l aw enfo rcem ent agents arr est ed M r. N gu y en at hi s s to re . D u ri n g th e e n c o u n te r M r. N g u y e n c o n v e rs e d w ith th e a g e n ts in E n g lis h . A f ter h e h a d b e e n re a d h is rig h ts, h e c o n se n ted to a w a rra n tles s s e a rc h o f h is-3-

hom e and bus i nes s . T he r ecor d and br i efs do noti ndi cat e w hatevi dence the a g e n ts s e ize d d u rin g th e se a rc h . S h o rtlyb e fo re trial M r. N g u y e n m o v e d to s uppr es s t he s ei zed e vi dence , cont endi ng thathi s cons entt o the s ear ch w as i nval i d beca us e ( 1) hi s l i m i t ed know l edge of E ngl i s h had made hi s cons ent u n k n o w in g , an d (2 ) th e a g e n ts h a d n o t in fo rm e d h im th a t h e c o u ld re f u se c o n se n t. T he di s t r i ctcourtdeni ed hi s m ot i on, fi ndi ng thathi s cons enthad bee n know i ng a n d v o l u n t a r y. M r. N g u y e n a lso filed a m o tio n to se v e r h is tria l f ro m th a t o f

h is codefendant , M r . L aym an. ( T he otherthr ee de fenda nt s had ent er ed i nt o pl ea agr eement s w i t h t he governm entbefor e tr i al . ) H e ar gued thathe w oul d be pr ej udi ced bya j oi ntt r i al beca us e s i x of the s even c ount s i n the i ndi ctm ent a lleg e d c rim in a l ac ts in w h ich h e w a s n o t in v o lv e d , an d th e e v id e n c e a g a in st h im w as m i ni m al compar ed t o t hatagai ns tM r . L aym an. T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed the m ot i on. O n J ul y17, 2006, M r . N guy en and M r . L aym an w er e tr i ed t ogetherbefor e a j ur y . I nvoi ces s how ed thatM r . N guy en had pur chas ed over400, 000 t abl et s of p seu d o ep h ed ri n e (a lth o u g h the re co rd o n ap p ea l do es n o t pro v ide a ti m e f ram e) and had s ol d ps eudoephe dr i ne t o M s . Sor r el s . M s . Sor r el s t es t i fi ed thatw hen i ns t ruct ed byM r . L aym an, s he w oul d go t o T & B E xpr es s G r oceryand gi ve M r . N guy en a pl as t i c bag c ont ai ni ng cas h thatM r . L aym an had pr epar ed. A ft er-4-

M r . N guy en and hi s fami l yhad count ed the money , M r . N guy en w oul d gi ve M s. S orr el s l arge qu anti t i es of p seudo eph edri ne tabl et s. M r . L aym an, r emar kabl y , t es t i fi ed on M r . N guy en’ s behal f. H e s ai d that w hen he ha d or i gi nal l yappr oache d M r . N guy en aboutbuy i ng l ar ge quant i t i es of ps eudoephe dr i ne, M r . N guy en had t ol d hi m thathe w oul d nots el l M r . L aym an the p ills b e c a u s e h e s u s p e c te d th a t h e w o u ld d o s o m e th in g ille g a l w ith th e m . M r. L a ym a n c o n v in c e d M r. N g u y e n th a t h e w a s s im p lyg o in g to se ll th e p ill s a t a fl ea mar ket , and M r . N guy en agr eed t o s el l hi m the pi l l s . A l though M r . L aym an sta ted th a t M r. N g u y e n d id n o t sp e a k E n g lish w e ll, h is d e sc rip tio n o f th e ir d e a lin g s s h o w e d th a t M r. N g u y e n u n d e rsto o d e n o u g h th a t M r. L a ym a n c o u ld c a ll hi m t o arr ange the pur chas es . T he evi dence al s o s how ed thaton Sept ember25, 2003, l aw enfor cementagent s had gi ven M r . N guy en a not i ce i nform i ng hi m that p s e u d o e p h e d ri n e c o u ld b e u s e d fo r m a n u fa c tu ri n g ille g a l d ru g s . D ur i ng t r i al M r . N guy en r eques t ed a s uppl ement al j ur yi ns truct i on on t he “l esseri ncluded offense” o f “D i stri bu t i on of L abo rat oryS up plyw i th R eckles s D i s r egar d U s ed t o M anufa ctur e M ethamphet ami ne. ” R . at46. T he courtdi d not gi ve the r eques t ed i ns t ruct i on. T he j uryfound M r . N guy en gui l tyon the cons pi r acychar ge.-5-

I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . M ot i on t o Sever M r . N guy en cont ends t hathi s t r i al s houl d have be en s ever ed fr om t hatof M r . L aym an. W e r evi ew t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r efus al t o s everforan abus e of d is c re tio n . S e e Un itedS ta tes v . Sm a ll , 4 2 3 F . 3 d 1 1 6 4 , 1 1 8 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). It is p re s u m e d th a t a lle g e d c o c o n s p ir a to rs s h o u ld b e tr ie d to g e th e r. See Uni t ed Stat es v. R ay , 3 7 0 F . 3 d 1 0 3 9 , 1 0 4 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) vacated on othergr ounds by R ay v. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 4 3 U . S . 1 1 0 9 (20 0 5 ). T h e d efen d an t m u st sho w “tha t th ere i s a s er i ous r i s k t hata j oi ntt r i al w oul d compromi s e a s peci fi c tr i al r i ght , or pr eventt he j ur yfr om m aki ng a r el i abl e j udgm entaboutgui l tori nnocenc e. ” Sm a ll , 423 F. 3d at1182 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . “To est abl i s h an abus e of di s cr et i on, a defendantm us tm ake a s tr ong s how i ng of ac tual pr ej udi ce. ” Id . a t 1 1 8 1 . M r . N guy en ar gues t hata j oi ntt r i al w as i m pr operbeca us e hi s r ol e i n the cons pi r acyw as s m al l compar ed t o thatof M r . L aym an, he had no know l edge of t he met hamphet ami ne l abs w her e M r . L aym an and other s m anufa ctur ed the drug, and hi s s al e of pi l l s w as unr el at ed t o M r . L aym an’ s m anufa ctur i ng act i vi t i es . B ut nei t heri n hi s m ot i on t o s evernori n hi s br i efs t o thi s courtdoes he poi ntt o any s peci fi c tr i al r i ghtcompromi s ed byj oi nderorexpl ai n w hyt he j ur ycoul d not j udge hi s gui l tori nnocenc e bas ed on the evi dence conce rni ng hi m . W e s ee no erro r i n the d en ial o f h is m o ti o n o r an yp rejud ice f rom the jo ind er.-6-

B . M oti on to Su p p ress M r. N g u y e n a rg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to supp res s becau se hi s consen tt o the w arr antl ess s earches of h i s hom e and bu si ness w as notknow i ng and vol unt ary . H e cont ends t hathi s l i m i t ed know l edge of E ngl i s h r ender ed hi s cons entunknow i ng, and thatbeca us e he ha d been a rr es t ed at t he t i m e he ga ve cons ent , and w as nott ol d thathe coul d r efus e, hi s cons entw as n o tv o l u n t a r y.

“ W h e n re v iew in g a d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f a m o tio n to su p p re ss , w e w ill con si der the tot al i t yof the ci rcum st ances an d v i ew t he ev i den ce i n a li gh tm ost favor abl e t o t he governm ent . W e w i l l acc eptt he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs unl es s t hos e fi ndi ngs ar e cl ear l yerr oneous . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. K i m oana , 383 F. 3d 1 2 1 5 , 1 2 2 0 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) . Bu twe r e v i e w i s s u e s o f l a w, in c lu d in g th e v a lid ity o f c o n s e n t, d e n o v o . See Uni t ed Stat es v. A ndr us , 483 F. 3d 7 1 1 , 7 1 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). M r . N guy en has pr ovi ded i n the r ecor d onl yl i m i t ed exc erpt s fr om t he su p p ression h ea ri n g . N ev erthe less, w e a re a b le t o co n clud e tha t th e d istri ct co u rt di d noterri n deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s . A l aw enfor cementagentpr es entat M r . N guy en’ s arr es tt es t i fi ed thatM r . N guy en appe ar ed t o under s t and w hatt he a g e n ts w e re s a y in g a n d th a t h e re s p o n d e d in E n g lis h . A f ter a d isc u ss io n in E ngl i s h aboutt he off

i cer s ’ r eques tt o s ear ch hi s hom e and bus i nes s , M r . N guy en sig n e d a c o n se n t fo rm a g re e in g to b o th se a rc h e s. N o th in g in th e re c o rd su g g e sts-7-

t hatM r . N guy en w as confus ed orthathe mi s under s t ood t he off i cer s . A l though he had bee n arr es t ed att he t i m e he s i gned the form , the di s tr i ctcour tfound thatthe s itu a tio n w a s n o t s o c o e rc iv e a s to re n d e r h is c o n s e n t in v o lu n ta ry. See Uni t ed S ta t e s v . S i ms , 4 2 8 F .3 d 9 4 5 , 9 5 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( a rr e s te e ’s c o n s e n t w a s v a lid ). A nd becau se fai l ure t o ad vis e an indi vidual of h i s r i gh tt o refuse a search r equ est i s nota “ne ces s arypr er equi s i t e t o demonstr at i ng a ‘ vol unt ary ’ cons ent , ” Sc h n e c k lo th v . B u sta m o n te , 412 U . S. 218, 232–33 ( 1973) , the off i cer s ’ al l eged fa ilu re to tell M r. N g u y e n th a t h e c o u ld re f u se is in su fficie n t in itse lf to re n d e r h is c o n s e n t in v o lu n ta ry. S e e S i ms , 4 2 8 F . 3 d at 95 3 . W e a ffirm the d istri ct co u rt ’s den i al of h i s m oti on t o sup press . C . Jury I nst ruct i on Fi nal l y , M r . N guy en cont ends t hatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed bec aus e i tr efus ed t o i ns t ructt he j ur yon t he offens e of di s tr i but i on of a l abor at or ys uppl y , w hi ch he cl ai m ed t o be a l es s er - i ncl uded offens e. H e i nvi t es us t o overrul e Uni t ed Stat es v. E l

- Haj j aoui , 227 F. 3d 1274, 1278 ( 10th C i r . 2000) , i n w hi ch w e hel d that d is tr ib u tio n o f

a la b o ra to ry su p p ly, s ee 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 2 (a)(11 ), is no t a l esse rin c lu d e d o ffe n s e o f

c o n s p ir a c yto d is tr ib u te a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e , s ee 2 1 U. S . C. § 841( a) ( 1) . B utj us tas w e hel d i n E l

- Haj j aouithat d istri b u ti o n o f a labo ratory su p p lyre q u ire s p ro o f o f a n e lem e n t n o t re q u ire d to p ro v e c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e , itlik e w ise re q u ire s p ro o f o f a n e lem e n t n o t re q u ire d to p rov e the o ffen se c h arg ed h ere — n am ely , “tha t th e p erso n to w h o m the lab o ratory-8-

su p p lyw a s d istrib u ted a c tu a llyu se d o r a ttem p ted to u se th a t su p p lyto m a n u fa c tu re a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e o r a lis te d c h e m ic a l.” 2 2 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 8 . T h e re fo re , d is tr ib u tio n o f a la b o ra to ry su p p ly w a s n o t a le s s e r- in c lu d e d o ffe n s e . T he di s t r i ctcourtdi d noterri n r efus i ng the r eques t ed i ns truct i on. I I I . CO NC L US I ON W e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge