N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. QUOC C HI TR

AN, AKA Quoc M a

p , De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10608

D.C . No. 5:13-c r-00076-R

M W -3
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. LENNIE LUAN LE,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-10259

D.C . No. 5:13-c r-00076-R

M W -1

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R ona ld M . Whyte , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 6, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED
FEB 09 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd D.W . NELSON a

nd C H RISTEN, C irc uit Judge s . Quoc C h i Tran a

nd Le nnie Lua

n Le e a ppe a l the ir jury

c onvic tions a

n d
se nte nc e s for c onspira c y

to c onduc t

gam b ling busine sse s in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C
. §§ 371 & 1955(a ). W e a ffirm . B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the history

of this c a s e , we ne e d not re c ount it he re . I The distric t c ourt did not err in a dm i tting e v ide nc e from wire ta ps of Le ’ s phone . In c onside ring a

wire ta p a pplic ation, theissuing c ourt ha s “ c onside ra ble disc re tion in finding ne c e ssity , pa rtic ula rly whe n the c a se involve s the inve stiga tion of a c onspira c y . ” Unite d State s v . Re e d , 575 F.3d 900, 909 (9th C ir. 2009). He re , the gove rnm e nt supporte d both wire ta p a pplic ations with a ffida

vits in c o m plia n c e with 18 U.S.C . § 2518(1)(c ), whic h re quire s tha t wire ta p
a pplic a tions inc lude “ a

full a n d c om ple te sta te m e nt a s to whe the r or not othe r inve stiga tive proc e dure s ha

ve be e n trie d a

n d fa i le d or why

the y re a sona

bly a ppe ar to be unlike ly

to suc c e e d

if trie d or to be too da

nge rous.” The issuing judge did not a buse his c onside ra

ble disc re tion whe n he de te rm ine d tha t the wire ta

ps we re
ne c e ssa ry be c a use the a ffidavits inc lude d am ple e vide nc e that othe r m e t hods we re fa lling short of the

inve stiga tion’ s goa ls.
2II

The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr by not sua sponte

instruc ting thejury on
una nim ity a s to the c onspira c y

c ount a ga inst Tra

n . A spe c i fic una

nim ity instruc tion is re quire d whe n the re is a “ ge nuine possibility tha t diffe re nt jurors vote d to c onvic t on the ba sis of diffe re nt c onspira c ie s .” Unite d State s v . Lapie r , 796 F.3d 1090, 1093 (9th C ir. 2015). Howe ve r, in this c a se , the gove rnm e nt te nde re d suffic ie nt e vide nc e e sta blishing one

ove rarc hing c onspira c y

involving
m ultipleloc a tions, not se

pa ra te c onspira c ie s. Tra

n did not tende r a

una nim ity instruc tion a

nd, give n the e vide nc e , the distric t c ourt did not pla i nly e rr by not giving one sua sponte . III The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Le ’ s m otion for a
ne w tria l ba se d on the g o ve rnm e nt’ s re da c tion of ide ntify ing inform ation of form e r
c a fé e m ploy e e s from

polic e re ports. Le wa s provide d the inform at ion with
re da c tions be fore tria l a

nd ha d am

ple opportunity

to re que st tha

t the gove rnm e nt provide the nam e s and ide ntify ing inform ation. Although the gove rnm e nt ha s not supplie d a

good re a s on for the re da c tions, given the c irc um sta nc e s— e spe c i a lly

the ta rdine ss of Le ’ s a sse rtion of theissue

— the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion c onc luding tha t the re le va

nc e of the inform ation wa s spe c u lative , tha t Le
3wa s a

ble to c ross-e x am ine the prim ary witne sse s a de quate ly , an d tha t Le wa s not
e ntitle d to a

ne wtria l. IV The e vide nc e wa s suffic i e nt for a ra tiona l juror to find bey o nd a re a sona ble doubt tha t the re wa s a g a

m bling busine ss involving five or m ore pe ople ove r thirty da y s, a s re q uire d by 18 U.S.C . § 1955(b)(1)(ii). In c onside ring a c ha lle nge to the suffic i e nc y

of the e v ide nc e , we m

ust c onstrue the e vide nc e in the light m ost favora ble to the prose c ution, a

nd infe re nc e s drawn from the e vide nc e m ay

be suffic i e nt to sustain a

c onvic tion. Unite d State s v . Be nne tt , 621 F.3d 1131, 1135, 1139 (9th C ir. 2010). C onstruing the

e v ide n c e in the light m ost fa vora ble to the prose c ution, we
c onc lude tha

t the gove rnm e nt provide d suffic ie nt e vide n c e of the pa rtic ipation of five or m ore pe ople involve d in the ove rarc hing c onspira c y . For e xam ple , in M ay 2012, Le m a de c a l ls a

nd se nt te xt m e ssa g e s to Tra n a bout theinsta l lation of gam bling m a c hine s; Dung Dinh agre e d to bring ne w m a c hine s to a c a fé and
c olle c te d m one y from

the m a c h ine s; Ta

m Nguy e n ne gotia

te d with c a fé owne rs
a bout how the

profits from

the gam bling m a c hine s would besplit; a n d Tu Nguy e n
c olle c te d m one y from

the m a c h ine s.

4V

The distric t c ourt did not err in a pply i ng a four-le ve l le a de rship e nha nc e m e nt to Le ’ s se nte nc e . The Se nte nc ing Guide line s provide for a four-le v e l inc re a se whe re “ the de fe nda

nt wa s a n orga niz e r or le a de r of a

c rim ina l a c t ivity that involve d five or m ore pa

rtic ipa nts or wa s othe rwise e xte nsive [.] ” U.S.S.G. § 3B 1 .1(a ). Le a c c e pte d pa ym e nts from

the e nte rprise , wa s c a lle d on to ha ndle proble m s, m a

ke c olle c tions, a

nd ne gotia

te ra te s. Give n the re c ord, the distric t
c ourt’ s fa c tua l findings were not c le a rly e rrone ous, a

nd the c ourt did not a

b use its disc re tion in a

pply ing the Guide line to the fa c ts. Unite d State s v . Gasc a-Ruiz , 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th C ir. 2017) (e n ba nc ) (e sta blishing sta

nda rd of re vie w). VI The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr in im posing Tra

n’ s c onditions of supe rvise d re le a se . Tran c ha lle nge s the c ondition re quiring him to pa y for a ll or pa

rt of the c ost of drug a buse and m e nta l he a l t

h tre atm e nt. B e c a

use the c ondition inc lude s the qua lific a tion tha

t Tra n pa y “ pa rt or a ll” of the c ost “ a s de e m e d a ppropria te , ” it c an be re a sona

bly unde rstood to re quire c onside ra t ion of a bility to pa y . Unite d State

s
v . Solte ro , 510 F.3d 858, 864–65 (9th C ir. 2007) (sum m arily re a ding suc h a
re quire m e nt into a

c om pa ra bly -phra se d c ondition of re le a s e ).

5The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr in im posing the c ondition tha

t Tra n not
a ssoc iate with a

m e m be r of a ga ng. Tra n a rgue s tha t this c ondition should be
m odifie d to inc lude an e xpre ss knowle dge re quire m e n t. This c onte ntion is fore c lose d by Unite d State s v . Ve ga , 545 F.3d 743 (9th C ir. 2008), whe re in we he ld that a me ns re a re quire m e nt wa s ne c e ssa rily im plie d in the se nte nc ing c ondition. Like wise , give n the im

plie d me ns re a re quire m e nt, the re wa s no pla in e rror in the distric t c o urt’ s im

p osition of a

c ondition tha

t Tra n not we ar gang c o lors or insignia
. Give n the fa c t tha

t the gove rnm e nt be ars the burde n of showing, by a pre p onde ranc e of the e vide nc e , a viola tion of a c ondition of re le a s e , the c o urt did not pla inly

e rr in im posing a c ondition sta

ting tha t the re would be a

pre s um ption of pa rtic i pation in ga

ng a c tivitie s if Tra

n we re found in the c om

pa ny of ga ng
m e m b e rs or we aring ga

ng c lothing. Tha

t portion of the

orde r doe s not a l te r the gove rnm e nt’ s sta

tutory burde n unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3583(e )(3) and the re fore did not
a ffe c t Tra n’ s substa ntia l rights. Give n tha t the re wa s no dire c t c onflic t be twe e n the judge ’ s ora l and writte n orde rs, the distric t

c ourt did not pla

inly e rr by not ora lly

im posing thre e sta

nda rd
c onditions of supe

rvise d re le a se . S

e e Unite d State

s v . N apie r , 463 F.3d 1040, 1042–43 (9th C ir. 2006) (holding tha t “ sta nda rd, boile rplat e c o n ditions of supe rvise d re le a se ” are “ im plic it in a n ora l se nte nc e ” ).
6The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr whe n it orde re d tha

t Tra n not a ssoc iate with fe lons. This c ondition wa s re a sona bly re late d to re ha

b i lita tion a nd public
sa fe ty . C f. Unite d State

s v . N apulou 593 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th C ir 2010) (distinguishing a

sim ila r c ondition perta ining to m isde m e an or offe nde rs on the ba sis tha t it wa s not re a sona

bly re lat e d to re ha

bilita t ion a nd public sa fe ty ). Tran’ s c ha lle nge s to the c onditions of supe rvise d re le a se re stric ting him from fre que nting a

gam bling e sta blishm e nt a

re fore c lose d by Unite d State s v . Phillips , 704 F.3d 754, 767–68 (9th C ir. 2012). VII The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr in im posing a $5,500 fine . The Se nte n c i ng Guide l ine s provide tha t “ [t] he c ourt sha ll im

pose a fine in a ll c a se s,
e xc e pt whe re the de fe nda nt e sta blishe s tha

t he is una

b le to pa y and is not like ly

to be c om e a ble to pa y any fine .” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a). The de fe nda n t be ars the burde n of proving indige

nc e . Unite d State

s v . Robinson , 20 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th C ir. 1994). Eve n whe re a de fe nda nt prove s indige nc e , the c ourt m ay im pose a fine if the de fe nda

nt ha s the e arning c a

pa c ity to pa

y the fine in the future
. Unite d State s
v . Orlando , 553 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th C ir. 2009). Tran did not c ha lle n ge the im position of the

fine in the distric t c ourt, nor did he atte m pt in a ny wa y to sa tisfy his burde n of proof to show a n ina bility to pa y , 7c ouple d with a like lihood tha

t he would ha

ve e arning c a

pa c ity in the future . In disc ussing the fine , the c o urt note d tha t it did not ha

ve m u c h inform at ion, a

nd im pose d the lowe st fine ava i la ble unde r the Guide line . The pre se nte nc e re port
c onta ine d som e inform ation on Tra n’ s a bility to pa y , but re c om

m e nde d tha

t a fine be im pose d. Although it would ha v e be e n pre fe ra

b le for the distric t c ourt to m ake
e xpre s s findings, give

n Tra n’ s fa ilure to obje c t or susta in his burde n of proof, the distric t c o urt did not pla

inly e rr in im p osing thefine
.
AFFIRM E D.

8