# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 32 83

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Sen g Xi on g

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 16 , 20 18

Fi le d: Feb ru ary 1, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, COLLOTON , and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

A jury co nv ic te d Sen g Xio ng of m ai l an d wire frau d in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 13 41 an d 13 43

. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Xio ng to 87 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. 1

Xio ng arg ue s th at th e co ur t erre d in di sa ll owi ng hi m f r o m pr es en ti ng affi rm at iv e

The Hon or ab l e Su sa n Ri ch ard Nels on , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.de fen se s ba se d on pe rcei ve d go ve rn m en t au th or it y , t ha t th e co ur t vi ol at ed hi s Fi fth

Am en dm en t rig ht s by qu es ti on in g hi m di rect ly, th at th e co ur t v i o la te d hi s Si xt h

Am en dm en t rig ht s by ba rri ng hi m fro m pr es en ti ng wit ne ss es , an d th at th e co ur t erre d

in im p os in g a se nt en ce th at is pr oc ed ur al ly an d su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. W e

affi rm

.

I. Back gr ou nd

Man y m em

be rs of th e Hm on g et hn ic gr ou p li vi ng in Lao s as si st ed th e Uni te d

St at es du rin g th e Viet na m W ar. W he n th e Uni te d St at es wit hd rew fro m th at reg io n,

th e Hm on g face d pe rs ecu ti on by th e Lao ti an go ve rn m en t. Man y Hm on g fle d to

Tha il an d an d ot he r ne arb y co un tri es , an d so m e ev en tu al ly se tt le d in th e Uni te d St at es

.

Xio ng , a Hm on g m an bo rn in Lao s, cam e to th e Uni te d St at es at a y ou ng ag e. Beg in ni ng in th e earl y 20 00 s, Xio ng pa rti ci pa te d i n v a r i o us Hm on g ad vo cacy

or ga ni zat io ns

. Rel ev an t he re, fro m m id -2 01 4 to earl y 20 16 Xio ng rep res en te d to th e

Hm on g co m

m un it y th at h e w a s wor ki ng wit h th e Uni te d Nati on s an d th e Uni te d

St at es go ve rn m en t to es ta bl is h a ne w co un try fo r th e Hm on g in So ut he as t Asia

. He

crea te d a gr ou p na m ed th e Hm on g Teb ch aws , whi ch tra ns la te s to “ Hm on g Co un try,”

an d refe rred to hi m se lf as Ken g Th er Sen g, or “ Fi rs t Lead er.” Xio ng ’s ho m el an d

pr ojec t rece ived en th us ia st ic su pp or t fro m m an y in th e Hm on g co m m un it y who de si re

to ret ur n to th ei r ho m e co un try, to be free fro m pe rs ecu ti on , an d to recl ai m th e li ve s

th ey ha d b efo re t he Viet na m

W ar.

Xio ng pr om ot ed th e Teb ch aws an d so li ci te d do na ti on s th ro u g h a co nf eren ce

cal l li ne , a You Tub e ch an ne l, a rad io br oa dc as t, a web si te

, an d a pe rs on al cel l ph on e

nu m be r. St ev e Mo ua , an ot he r Hm on g in di vi du al

, al lo wed Xio ng to us e th e cal l li ne

he ha d pr ev io us ly es ta bl is he d to se ll va rio us su pp le men t s wit hi n th e Hm on g

co m m un it y

. Mo ua al so us ed hi s Y o u Tub e ch an ne l to up lo ad Xio ng ’s vi su al

pr es en ta ti on s. Xio ng ’s web si te pr ov id ed a “ Ret ur ni ng Hom e Reg is tra ti on Fo rm ” an d

-2

-hi s W el ls Farg o ba nk acco un t nu m be r so th at do n o r s c o u l d de po si t m on ey di rect ly

in to hi s ac co un t.

Xio ng to ld hi s fo ll owe rs th at va rio us le ve ls of m on et ary su pp or t wou ld en ti tl e

do no rs to pr op or ti on al rewar ds fro m th e so on -to -b e es ta bl is he d Hm on g go ve rn m en t.

The be st be ne fit s wou ld accr ue t o t ho se who pa id am ou nt s be twee n th ree an d fiv e

th ou sa nd do ll ars , a s th ey wou ld rece iv e a sh are of th e go ve rn m en t’s su rp lu s each

y ear, whe th er it was “ bi ll io ns , m il li on s, [o r] tri ll io ns .” He to ld hi s fo ll owe rs th at

sp ace was li m it ed in each do no r cl as s an d th at Hm on g fam il ie s an d i n di vi du al s

ne ed ed to ob ta in m em

be rs hi p to joi n th e m ig rat io n to th e ne w n at io n. H e a l s o t o ld

hi s fo ll owe rs th at he co ul d no t sh are m uc h in fo rm at io n wit h th em b e cau se hi s

o p e r a t i o n s w ere “ to p se cret .” He sa id th at hi s pr ojec t was ad va nc in g an d th at th e

Uni te d St at es go ve rn m en t ha d co ns id ered

, an d th en ap pr ove d, th e ne w Hm on g na ti on

. He rel eas ed a fin al v i d e o o n S ep te m be r 16

, 20 15

, whi ch as se rte d th at au th or it ie s

wou ld “ ta ke [th e Hm on g] acro ss th e oc ean ” to a ne wly es ta bl is he d ho m el an d wit hi n

th e n ex t fe w days.

Sh or tl y th erea fte r, W el ls Farg o fro ze Xio ng ’s acco un t aft er rece iv in g ti ps th at

it was be in g us ed in co nn ect io n wit h frau d. Law en fo rcem en t be ga n in ve st ig at in g

Xio ng wit hi n week s of hi s fin al vi de o. Xio ng was arre st ed an d c h a r g ed in Mar ch

20 16

. By th at ti m e, Xio ng ha d rece iv ed ro ug hl y $1 .7 m i l l i o n fro m Hm on g

i n d i v i d ua ls

, $1 69 ,00 0 of whi ch he sp en t on pe rs on al ex pe nd it ur es su ch as fo od

, cl ot hi ng , air tra ve l, h ot el s, an d e sc or ts

.

At th e go ve rn m en t’s req u e s t

, t he di st ric t co ur t or de red Xio ng to di sc lo se

whe th er he in te nd ed to rai se a de fen se ba se d on pe rcei ve d go ve rn m en t au th or it y

. See

Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 12 .3(a ). Fo ll owi ng Xio ng ’s fai lu re to m ak e th e req ui red di sc lo su res , th e go ve rn m en t mo v e d i n li m in e to ex cl ud e an y ev id en ce rel at ed to an y pe rcei ve d

go ve rn m en t au th or it y de fen se un le ss Xio ng pr of fere d th e ev id en ce by th e ti m e of th e

-3

-pr et ria l co nf eren ce. The co ur t ex te nd ed th e de ad l i ne fo r th e Ru le 12 .3 di sc lo su res , bu t aft er Xio ng fai le d to co m pl y , th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n.

Afte r th e de ad li ne ha d ex pi red

, Xio ng res po nd ed to th e co ur t’s or de r wit h a li st

of f i v e g o v e r nm en t of

fic ia ls to who m he wou ld refe r, bu t no t cal l to te st ify, whi le

pr es en ti n g h i s cas e. The go ve rn m en t ag ai n m ov ed in li m in e to pr ev en t Xio ng ’s

co un se l fro m su gg es ti ng in hi s op en in g st at em en t or be fo re pr es en ti ng Xio ng ’s cas ein -ch ie f th at Xio ng ha d m et wit h g ov ern m en t o ffi ci al s. Th e co ur t th en sc he du le d a

pr et ria l he ari ng , or de rin g Xio ng to cl ari fy whe th er he p l a n n e d t o as se rt a de fen se

ba se d on pe rcei ve d go ve rn m en t au th or it y , an d if he di d, to pr of fer ev id en ce su ffi ci en t

to m ak e a pr im a faci e sh owi ng as to each el em en t of hi s ch os en th eo rie s of de fen se

. Th e co ur t id en ti fie d th e th ree de fen se s Xio ng m ig ht rai se ba se d on pe rcei ve d

go ve rn m en t au th or it y

—p ub li c au th or it y , en tra pm en t by es to pp el

, a n d in no cen t

in te nt —an d s et for th th e el em en ts of e ach de fen se

.

At th e pr et ria l he ari ng , Xio ng ’s co un se l st at ed th at Xio ng w o u l d te st ify

reg ard in g co m

m un i c at io ns wit h go ve rn m en t of fic ia ls th at le d Xio ng to be li ev e he

co ul d l eg al ly p ur su e op erat io ns to es ta bl is h a Hm on g na ti on

. Xio ng ’s c ou ns el was

un ab le to pr of

fer ev id en ce of th es e co m m un ic at io ns , ho wev er, an d as ke d th e co ur t to

qu es ti on Xio ng di rect ly to ob ta in ev id en ce. Not in g th at th e req ue st ed pr oc ed ur e was

un us ua l, th e co ur t ob li ge d. W it ho ut fir st be in g pl aced un de r oa th

, Xio ng sa id th at he

ha d s p ok en in 20 06 wit h go ve rn m en t of fic ia l Ja ck ie San de rs , wh o ha d pr om is ed to

fo rward Xio ng ’s le tt er pr op os in g a Hm on g na ti on to th e W hi te Hou se

. Xio ng of fere d

no fu rth er ev id en ce of th is co nv ers at io n. The co ur t qu es ti on ed Xio ng ab ou t th e ot he r

go ve rn m en t of

fic ia ls he ha d na m ed

, an d Xio ng pr ov id ed no ev id en ce, ot he r th an hi s

te st im on y , th at he ha d s po ke n wi th th e o ffi ci al s l is te d. He p ro vi de d n o evi de nc e o f

an y fur th er g ov ern m en t co nt act

.

Rec og ni zi ng th at Xio ng was no t un de r oa th , t he co ur t th en pl aced hi m un de r

oa th an d co nt in ue d qu es ti on in g hi m ab ou t hi s p erce iv ed go ve rn m en t au th or it y

-4

-de fen se s. Afte r co nf erri ng wit h Xio ng , de fen s e co un se l in fo rm ed th e co ur t th at

Xio ng wou ld em

pl oy on ly th e in no cen t in te nt de fen se , whi ch di d no t req ui re pr et ria l

di sc lo su res

. The go ve rn m en t req ue st ed th at Xio ng ’s co un s el no t refe r to an y

co nv ers at io ns wit h go ve rn m en t of fic ia ls be fo re th e pr es en ta ti on of Xio ng ’s cas e-i nch ie f, an d Xio ng ’s cou ns el ag reed

.

The go ve rn m en t pr es en te d ev id en ce at tri al th at Xio ng ha d li ed to hi s fo ll owe rs

ab ou t wor ki ng w it h au th or it ie s to crea te a Hm on g ho m el an d. Vari ou s go ve rn m en t

of fic ia ls te st ifi ed th at Xio ng ha d ne ve r vi si te d th e W hi te H o u s e , ha d ne ve r sp ok en

wit h th e St at e Dep art m en t ab ou t fo rm in g a ne w na ti on , a n d h a d ne ve r no ti fie d th e

U n i t e d Nati on s of th e Hm on g Teb ch aws an d th ei r ho pe fo r a ho m el an d. The

ev id en ce s ho wed th at Uni te d S ta te s an d Un it ed Nati on s o ffi ci al s wer e n ot aware o f

Xio ng or hi s pr ojec t an d ne ve r ap pr ov ed th e crea ti on of a ne w Hm on g na ti on

. Rat he r,

th e ev id en ce sh owe d th at Xio ng ha d at te nd ed ro ug hl y th ree Uni te d Nati on s se ss io ns

be twee n 20 06 an d 20 08

, whe n he was affi li at ed wit h an ad vo cacy or ga ni zat io n cal le d

th e Co ng res s of W or ld Hm on g P e o p l e , an d an in fo rm at iv e br ie fin g reg ard in g th e

Hm on g co m

m un it y at th e Uni te d Nati on s Vis it or Cen te r o n S e p t e mb er 4, 20 15

. Sp eci al Age nt Mi ch ael Ols on te st ifi ed th at an y on e m ay req ue st an in fo rm at iv e

br ie fin g on th e to pi c of th e req ue st or ’s ch oo si ng , co ur te sy of th e Uni te d Nati on s to ur

an d v is it in g s erv ic e.

In hi s op en in g s ta te m en t, Xio ng ’s co un se l hi gh li gh te d Xio ng ’s “ in cred ib le

p a s s i o n fo r hi s pe op le .” He to ld th e jury to “ co ns id er th e el em en t of in te nt ” a n d

pr om is ed to pr es en t ev id en ce tha t Xion g had pl an ne d to es ta bl is h a ho m el an d whe n

he so li ci te d do na ti on s. Xio ng , hi s br ot he r, an d fo ur m em be rs of th e Hm on g

Teb ch aws te st ifi ed fo r th e de fen se

. Asi de fro m hi s te st im on y , Xio ng pr es en te d no

ev id en ce of co m

m un ic at io ns w i t h Uni te d St at es or Uni te d Nati on s of fic ia ls

. In hi s

cl os in g, Xio ng ’s co un se l arg ue d th at Xio ng be li ev ed in hi s m is si on an d la ck ed in te nt

to co m m it frau d. Xio ng ’s co un se l al so bl am ed St ev e Mo ua an d riv al cu lt ur al gr ou ps

fo r fram in g Xi on g. Th e jury retu rn ed gu il ty verd ic ts on bo th co un ts

.

-5

-At Xio ng ’s req ue st

, ne w co un se l was ap po in te d to rep res en t hi m at se nt en ci ng

.

The co ur t de te rm in ed th at Xio ng ’s ba s e of fen se le ve l un de r th e Uni te d St at es

Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (Gu id el in es or U.S.S.G.) as to each ch arg ed of fen se was 7.

The co ur t ap pl ie d a 1 6

- l e ve l en ha nc em en t fo r th e am ou nt of lo ss , § 2B 1.1 (b )(1 )(I),

a 2- le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r co m m it ti ng th e of

fen se t h r ou gh m as s m ark et in g, § 2B 1.1 (b )(2 )(A)(i i), an d, fin al ly, a 2- le ve l en ha nc em en t un de r § 3A1 .1(b )(1 ) in li gh t

of it s de te rm in a t i o n t h a t Xio ng ha d pr ey ed on vu ln erab le vi ct im s, to whi ch Xio ng

lo dg ed an un su cces sf

ul ob jecti on

. The co ur

t de te rm ined th at Xio ng ’s cri m in al hi st or y

cat eg or y was I an d th at hi s ad jus te d ba se of

fen se le ve l was 27

, res ul ti ng in a

Gui de li ne s sen te nc in g ran ge of 70 -8 7 m on th s on each co un t. It sen te nc ed Xio ng to

87 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t on each co un t, to ru n co nc ur ren tl y

. The co ur t al so im po se d

a 3 -y ear t erm

of s up erv is ed rel eas e an d re st it ut io n t ot al in g $ 1,2 26 ,46 6.

II. Dis cu ss io n

A. Defen se s B as ed on Perc ei ve d Go ve rn m en t Au th or it y

W e ha ve reco gn iz ed th ree de fen se s ba se d on pe rcei ve d go ve rn m en t au th or it y :

pu bl ic au th or it y , en tra pm en t by es to pp el

, an d in no cen t in te nt

. “ ‘Pub li c au th or it y ’ ha s

be en de sc rib ed as an a f

f irmativ e de fen se whe re th e de fen da nt se ek s ex on erat io n

ba se d on th e fact th at he reas on ab ly rel ie d o n t he au th or it y of a go ve rn m en t offi ci al

to en ga ge hi m in co ve rt act iv it y .” Uni te d St at es v. Ach te r, 52 F.3 d 75 3, 75 5 (8 th Ci r.

19 95 ). Ent rap m en t by es to pp el ap pl ie s “ wh e n a n o f f i ci al as su res a de fen da nt th at

cert ai n co nd uc t is le ga l, an d th e d e f en da nt reas on ab ly rel ie s on th at ad vi ce an d

co nt in ue s or in it ia te s th e co nd uc t.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Sm it h, 94 0 F.2 d 71 0,

71 4 (1 st Ci r. 19 91 )). Und er th e in no cen t in te nt de fen se , a de fen da nt cl ai m s th at “ he

l ack ed cri m in al in te nt .” Uni te d St at es v. Bap ti st a-Ro dr ig ue z, 17 F.3 d 13 54

, 1 3 6 8

n

. 1 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 94 ). The pu bl ic au th or it y an d en tra pm en t by es to pp el de fen s e s

req ui re pr et ria l di sc lo su res , in cl ud in g no ti ce an d a li st of wi tn es se s, un de r Fed eral

Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 12 .3. The in no cen t in te nt de fen se do es no t req ui re su ch

di sc lo su res be cau se it is ba se d on th e co nt en ti on th at th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr ov e

-6

-th e in te nt ele m en t o f th e cri m es . After th e pr et ria l h eari ng , th e d is tri ct co ur t b arre d

Xio ng fro m rai si ng ei th er th e pu bl ic au th or it y or en tra pm en t by es to pp el de fen se s, bu t

Xio ng rem ai ne d fr ee t o p ur su e an in no cen t i nt en t t he or y

.

Xio ng arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed i t s d i s c r e ti on by req ui rin g hi m to

sh ow act ua l au th or it y fro m a go ve rn m en t offi ci al to rai se an y of th e th ree pe rcei ve d

go ve rn m en t au th or it y de fen se s. Xio ng arg ue s th at th e co ur t’s in co rrec t l e ga l 2

st an da rd ba rred hi m fro m m en ti on in g go ve rn men t co nt act s an d rai si ng pe rcei ve d

go ve rn m en t au th or it y de fen se s at tri al

. “ A di st ric t co ur t ab us es i t s d i s c r e ti on if it 3

co m m it s an erro r of la w.” Em ery v. Hun t, 2 7 2 F.3 d 10 42

, 10 46 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ).

Bec au se Xio ng fai le d to ob ject to th e pr ecl us io n of an y p ub li c au th or it y an d

en tra pm en t by es to pp el de fen se s, he ha s no t pr op erl y pr es erv ed th is is su e fo r ap pe al

. Fed

. R. Evi d. 10 3( a)(2 ). W e th eref or e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to ex cl ud e

th e de fen se s an d rel at ed ev id en ce fo r pl ai n erro r. W al ke r v. Kan e, 88 5 F.3 d 53 5, 53 8
(8 th Cir . 20 18 ).

Xio ng co nc ed es th at th e co ur t co rrec tl y ex pl ai n e d th es e req ui rem en ts in it s 2

or de r req ui rin g a pr et ria l he ari ng , bu t he cl ai m s th at th e co ur t de vi at ed fro m it s or de r

at th e pr et ria l he ari ng an d req ui red hi m to sh ow actu al au th or it y fro m a go ve rn m en t
of fic ia l t o p res en t an y

of t he th ree p erce iv ed go ve rn m en t au th or it y de fen se s.

Th e co ur t al lo wed Xio ng to pr es en t an in no cen t in te nt de fen se wit ho ut a n y 3

pr et ria l pr of

fer, an d he av ai le d hi m se lf of th e op po rtu ni ty, d es pi te hi s arg um en ts to
th e co nt rary. Thi s is cl ear fro m hi s co un se l’s rem ark s an d qu es ti on in g th ro ug ho ut th e tri al

. Fo r ex am

pl e, Xio ng ’s co un se l pr om is ed in hi s op en in g rem ark s to “ pr es en t to [th e jury] what [Xio ng ’s] in te nt io ns are, wh at hi s g oo d fait h in te nt io ns are i n t hi s -- in hi s jou rn e y o r in hi s pu rs ui t of a Hm on g Co un try or Hm on g Teb ch aws fo r hi s

m em be rs an d hi s pe op le .” Co un se l co nt in ue d “ I wan t y ou to co ns id er th e el em en t of

in te nt

. . . yo u w i l l h e a r di rect ly fro m Mr. Xio ng th e reas on s an d th e ba si s an d th e

su bs ta nt ia ti on fo r hi s act io ns .” W e th us reject an y arg um en t th at th e co ur t pr ecl ud ed

Xio ng fro m

pre se nt in g t hi s d efen se

.

-7

-The reco rd rev e a l s th at th e di st ric t co ur t req ui red Xio ng to sh ow act ua l

au th or it y on ly fo r a pu bl ic au th or it y de fen se

. W e ha ve he ld th at su ch a d e f e ns e is

av ai la bl e whe n a d e f

e n d an t “ reas on ab ly rel ie d on th e au th or it y of a go ve rn m en t

of fic ia l,” Ach te r, 52 F.3 d at 75 5, bu t we ha ve no t y et ad dr es se d whe th er th e de fen se

req ui res a sh owi ng of a ct ua l, as op po se d to ap pa ren t, au th or it y

. See Uni te d St at es 4

v. Eva ns , 97 2 F.2d 35 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ) (u np ub li sh ed ta bl e de ci si on ) (d is cu ss in g bu t

no t de ci di ng th e is su e). Nor do es Xio ng pr ov id e us an oc cas io n to do so

. He of fere d

no ev id en ce s uf

fic ie nt to m eet a le ss er ap pa ren t au th or it y st an da rd

, ren de rin g

ha rm le ss an y

erro r by the di st ric t co ur t.

Bec au se Xio ng fai le d to sh ow ev en ap pa ren t au th or it y , th e co ur t di d no t err in

pr ev en ti ng hi m fro m rai si ng a pu bl ic au th or it y de fen se at tri al

. Nor di d th e co ur t err

in pr ecl ud in g hi m fro m pr es en ti ng an en tra pm en t by es to pp el de fen se in li gh t of hi s

fai lu re to of

fer an y ev id en ce. See Ach te r, 52 F.3 d at 75 5 (co nc lu di ng th at th e di st ric t

co ur t p r o p erl y pr ecl ud ed th e de fen da nt fro m pr es en ti ng pu bl ic au th or it y or

entr ap m en t by es to pp el de fen se s be cau se he pr of fere d ins uf

fi ci en t ev ide nc e to supp or

t

th e d efen se s) ; s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Ben ni ng , 24 8 F .3d 77 2, 7 77 (8t h C ir. 2 00 1)
(s am e as to en tra pm en t b y est op pe l d efen se ).

B. Co ns ti tu ti on al Vio la ti on s

Xio ng arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t vi ol at ed hi s Fi fth Am en dm en t rig ht ag ai ns t

se lf- in cri m in at io n by d ire ct ly que st io ni ng hi m in th e p ret ria l co nf

eren ce. The Fif

th

Am en dm en t pro m is es th at no pe rs on “ sh al l be com pe ll ed in an y cri m in al cas e to be

a wit ne ss ag ai ns t hi m se lf.” U.S. Co ns t. am en d. V. Th i s p r i v i le ge ag ai ns t se lfOur si st er ci rcu it s to co ns id er th e is su e un an im ou sl y req ui re act ua l au th or it y

. 4

See Uni te d S t a t e s v

. Sari le s, 64 5 F.3 d 31 5, 31 9 (5 th Ci r. 20 11 ); Uni te d St at es v. Fu lc he r, 25 0 F.3 d 24 4, 25 4 (4 th Ci r. 20 01 ); Uni te d St at es v. Pi tt

, 19 3 F.3d 75 1, 75 8 (3 d Cir. 19 99 ); Bap ti st a-Ro dr ig ue z, 17 F.3 d at 13 68 n.1 8; Uni te d St at es v. Dug ga n, 74 3 F .2d 59 , 84 (2d Cir . 19 84 ).

-8

-in cri m in at io n “ is a fu nd am en ta l t r i al rig ht ,” an d whi le pr et ria l qu es ti on in g m ay

“ ul ti m at el y im

pa ir th at rig ht

, a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n occ ur s on ly at tri al .” Uni te d

St at e s v. Verd ug o- Urq ui de z, 49 4 U.S. 25 9, 26 4 (1 99 0)

. Xio ng was qu es ti on ed

ou ts id e th e pr es en ce of th e jury, an d hi s st at em en ts were no t pr es en te d to th e jury.

Xio ng al le ge s th at th e co ur t at on e po in t “rel ay ed [h is st at em en ts ] to th e jury as an

ad m is si on o f g u i l t,” App el la nt ’s Br. at 28

, bu t th e la ng ua ge he ci te s co m pr is es th e

di st ric t co ur t’s su m

m ary of Xio ng ’s in di ct m en t fo r th e jury. W e co nc lu de th at Xio ng

ha s fa il ed to sh ow an y

vi ol at io n o f hi s ri gh t ag ai ns t s el f-i nc riminat io n.

Xio ng al so co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t vi ol at ed hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht

to co m pu ls or y pr oc es s by req ui rin g act ua l au th or it y to pr es en t hi s de fen s e s an d by

de te rm in in g th at Xio ng co ul d no t refe r to U n i te d St at es or Uni te d Nati on s of fic ia ls

whe n as se rti n g h i s i nn oc en t in te nt de fen se

. The Si xt h Am en dm en t gu aran te es an

accu se d th e rig ht to “ ha ve co m pu ls or y pr oc es s fo r ob ta in in g wit ne ss es in hi s fav or .”

U.S. Co ns t. am en d. VI. “ Befo re a cri m in al d e f en da nt is en ti tl ed to co m pu ls or y

pr oc es s, ho wev er, he m

us t es t a b l i s h t ha t th e te st im on y of th e wit ne ss es who se

pr es en ce he wis he s to co m pe l is fav or ab le an d m at eri al .” Perr y v. Loc kh art

, 87 1 F.2 d

13 84

, 13 8 6

- 87 (8 th Ci r. 19 89 ). Xio ng ’s fai lu re to na m e an y wit ne ss es th at he was

pr ev en te d fro m cal li ng pr ecl ud es an y ev al ua ti on of th e m at eri al it y of su ch te st im on y ,

an d we t hu s co nc lu de th at Xio ng ’s rig ht to co m pu ls or y pro ces s was no t v io la te d.

W e do no t co ns i d e r X io ng ’s arg um en t th at hi s tri al co un se l pr ov id ed

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce in vi ol at io n o f h i s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht s. “ W e wil l no t

co ns id er an in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m no t fir st pr es en te d to th e di st ric t co ur t an d on

whi ch a pr op er reco rd ha s no t be en m ad e.” Uni te d St at es v. Duk e, 94 0 F.2 d 11 13

, 11 20 (8t h C ir. 1 99 1)

.

-9

-C. Sen te nc in g

Xio ng cl ai m s th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

be cau se th e co ur t ga ve in ad eq ua te weig ht to th e se nt en ci ng go al of red uc in g di sp ari ty

am on g si m il arl y si tu at ed de fen da nt s. He co m pa res hi s 87 -m on th se nt en ce to th e 12 0-

m on th se nt en ce of frau ds te r Den ny Heck er, who st ol e su bs ta nt ia ll y m or e m on ey th an

Xio ng di d. W e di sc ern no ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. So li z, 85 7 F.3 d 78 1,

78 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w). The co ur t ex pl ic it ly co ns id ered di sp ari ti es

am on g si m il arl y si tu at ed de fen da nt s an d ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai ne d it s se nt en ce, re as on in g

th at Xio ng ha d li ed to hi s fo ll owe rs , pr ey ed on th ei r vu ln erab il it ie s, and m ai nt ai ne d

hi s in no cen ce at se nt en ci ng

. Po in ti ng to Heck er’s se nt en ce do es li tt le fo r Xio ng

. See

id

. (“ The se nt en ci ng pr act ic es of on e di st ric t co ur t are no t a refe ren ce po in t fo r ot he r

co ur ts .”).

Xio ng di sp ut es th e co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of a vu ln erab le vi ct im en ha nc em en t fo r

th e fir st ti m e in hi s rep ly br ie f. W e ge ne ral ly do no t ad dr es s arg um en ts in it ia ll y rai se d

in rep ly br ie fs , th ou gh we m ay if t he ne w arg um en ts su pp le m en t t ho se rai se d i n th e

in it ia l br ie f. S e e J o ne s v. Aetn a Life In s. Co

., 85 6 F.3 d 54 1, 54 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ).

Xio ng ’s arg um en t su pp le m en ts no ne in it ia ll y rai se d, an d we th us de cl in e to co ns id er

it

.

The jud gm en t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-