* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30112

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VIET THEO NGUYEN, also known as U C

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:07-CR-142-ALL

Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Viet Theo Nguyen appeals the 72-month sentence imposed following his

guilty plea conviction for causing bodily injury to another person with the intent

to retaliate against the person for providing law enforcement with information

relating to the commission of a federal offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1513(b)(2). Nguyen argues that the sentence was unreasonable because the

district court failed to account for a fact that should have received significant

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 17, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-30112

2

weight, that is, that the assault was not an act of premeditated retaliation but

instead was triggered by the victim’s “staring down” Nguyen. 

Under the discretionary sentencing system established by United States

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), district courts retain a duty to consider the

Sentencing Guidelines, along with the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a). United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir. 2005). This

court reviews the sentence imposed for reasonableness in light of the factors set

forth in § 3553(a). Id. at 519. 

We must first determine whether the district court committed any

procedural errors. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). If the

district court’s decision is procedurally sound, this court will “consider the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion

standard . . . tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. A

post-Booker discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated

guideline range is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness.

United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Although Nguyen argued in favor of a sentence below the guidelines range,

he has failed to rebut the presumption that the sentence imposed was

reasonable. The record reflects that the district court carefully considered

Nguyen’s arguments, read letters of support on Nguyen’s behalf, and heard

testimony from both Nguyen and his sister. The district court noted, however,

that the offense was a “very serious” one that has the effect of deterring

individuals from reporting crimes and cooperating with the Government.

Further,the district court considered the factors and statutory concerns set forth

in § 3553(a), including the nature and circumstances of the offense, the

seriousness of the offense, Nguyen’s criminal history, as well as the need to

protect the public, to provide respect for the law, and to provide adequate

deterrence against future criminal conduct. 
No. 08-30112

3

The district court considered the proper factors and adequately explained

the sentence being given. In light of the deference due to the district court’s

sentencing decisions, there was no abuse of discretion. See Gall, 128 S. Ct. at

597; Alonzo, 435 F.3d at 554.

Nguyen’s sentence is AFFIRMED.