United States v. Chinh Tiet Nguyen ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHINH TIET NGUYEN,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cr-00069-WO-1)
Submitted: July 19, 2011 Decided: August 16, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark E. Edwards, EDWARDS & TRENKLE, PLLC, Durham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Chinh Tiet Nguyen appeals the eighty-four-month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession with
intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§
841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (West 1999 & Supp. 2011) (Count One),
and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2006) (Count
Three). Counsel for Nguyen filed a brief in this court in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning the reasonableness of Nguyen’s sentence. Counsel
states, however, that he has found no meritorious grounds for
appeal. Nguyen, notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, did not do so. Because we find no
meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm.
Nguyen’s counsel questions the reasonableness of
Nguyen’s sentence. We review a sentence imposed by a district
court under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Lynn,
592 F.3d 572, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2010). We begin by reviewing the
sentence for significant procedural error, including such errors
as “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors,
selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or
2
failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence — including an
explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall,
552 U.S. at 51. If there are no procedural errors, we then
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking
into account the totality of the circumstances. United States
v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
“When rendering a sentence, the district court ‘must
make an individualized assessment based on the facts
presented.’” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th
Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50) (emphasis omitted).
Accordingly, a sentencing court must apply the relevant §
3553(a) factors to the particular facts presented and must
“‘state in open court’” the particular reasons that support its
chosen sentence. Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(c) (West 2000
& Supp. 2011)). The court’s explanation need not be exhaustive;
it must be “sufficient ‘to satisfy the appellate court that the
district court has considered the parties’ arguments and has a
reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking
authority.’” United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th
Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356
(2007)) (alterations omitted).
We conclude that the sentence imposed by the district
court was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The
district court calculated the Guidelines range and understood
3
that it was advisory. Furthermore, it is apparent that the
court had a reasoned basis for its decision. The court made an
individualized statement explaining the sentence imposed. Thus,
the court imposed a reasonable sentence under the circumstances.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Nguyen, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Nguyen requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Nguyen. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4