Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tuan Minh PHAM, also known as Chicken, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-09
Citations: 332 F. App'x 193
Docket Number: No. 08-50591
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tuan Minh PHAM, also known as Chicken, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 193–194

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tuan Minh PHAM, also known as Chicken, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50591
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 9, 2009.
Douglas W. Gardner, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, Austin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joseph Andrew Turner, Law Office of Joseph A. Turner, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tuan Minh Pham was convicted of one count of conspiring to possess Ecstasy with intent to distribute and was sentenced to serve 180 months in prison. Pham now appeals his conviction and sentence. Pham first argues that the district court erred by rejecting his first plea agreement and by denying his motion for discovery. Pham also contends that the district court improperly relied upon information in his presentence report (PSR) when considering whether to reject his first plea agree ment. Pham argues that the Government acted improperly with respect to his first plea agreement. Pham waived these claims by subsequently entering an unconditional guilty plea. See United States v. Smallwood, 920 F.2d 1231, 1240 (5th Cir.1991); United States v. Bell, 966 F.2d 914, 915-16 (5th Cir.1992). We thus decline to consider them.
Pham contends that the district court erred by relying upon uncorroborated hearsay statements from his codefendants, which were contained in the PSR, at sentencing. Pham has shown no error in connection with the district court's decision to rely on the information contained in the PSR at sentencing. See United States v. Mitchell, 484 F.3d 762, 776 (5th Cir.2007); United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir.2006); United States v. Young, 981 F.2d 180, 186-87 (5th Cir.1992).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.