United States v. Huy Chi Luong ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                 FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              MAR 04 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 09-10420
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 3:96-cr-00094-MHP-2
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    HUY CHI LUONG, AKA Chi Fei, AKA
    Jimmy Luong,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Marilyn H. Patel, Senior District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted September 14, 2010
    San Francisco, California
    Before: WALLACE and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and MILLS, Senior District
    Judge.**
    Luong appeals from the district court’s imposition of a five-year consecutive
    sentence for one violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)(1) (1997). We review a district
    *
    32             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    33   except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    34            The Honorable Richard Mills, Senior United States District Judge for the
    35   Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    court’s construction and application of a mandatory minimum sentence provision
    de novo. United States v. Hoyt, 
    879 F.2d 505
    , 511 (9th Cir. 1989), as amended,
    
    888 F.3d 1257
     (9th Cir. 1989). We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal under
    
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and 
    18 U.S.C. § 3742
    . We affirm.
    
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c) requires a mandatory consecutive five-year sentence for
    its violation, and the district court had no choice but to impose it in sentencing
    Luong. See United States v. Hungerford, 
    465 F.3d 1113
    , 1118 (9th Cir. 2006).
    Luong contends that in a separate case filed in the Eastern District of California,
    the district court’s money laundering sentences improperly considered his section
    924(c) conviction which is before us. However, it is the Eastern District of
    California court’s sentence with which Luong actually takes issue, not this appeal
    from the Northern District of California Court. His double jeopardy challenge can
    be raised in his appeal from the Eastern District of California sentence.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-10420

Judges: Wallace, Thomas, Mills

Filed Date: 3/4/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024