United States v. Vinh Hoang Tran , 405 F. App'x 224 ( 2010 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 10 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50668
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 8:07-cr-00278-CJC-4
v.
MEMORANDUM *
VINH HOANG TRAN, AKA Junior,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 7, 2010 **
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT, WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge.***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Rudi M. Brewster, Senior United States District Judge
for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
Because the parties are familiar with the facts and circumstances underlying
this case, we array them only insofar as necessary to illuminate our decision.
Tran’s first issue is that he was denied the identity of the informant in
Minnesota who tipped off the police to Tran’s controlled substances business in
California. The district court held a full hearing on this issue and determined that
the informant had no information that could help Tran in his defense. Upon
review, we conclude that this decision was an appropriate exercise of the court’s
discretion. The informant in Minnesota did no more than introduce an undercover
officer to the seller of pills in Minnesota and had nothing to do with Tran and his
confederates in California.
Tran’s assertion that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction
is without merit. The inculpatory testimony of accomplices and co-conspirators
plus the contents of the wiretaps was more than sufficient to establish his guilt of
the charge.
Last, the district court’s adherence to the Sentencing Guidelines was without
error. Tran’s argument against the use of an entire pill instead of the weight of the
active ingredient in the pill to determine quantity is foreclosed by the Guidelines
themselves, see USSG § 2D1.1, comment. (n.10(E) and 11), and United States v.
Crowell, 9 F.3d 1452, 1454-55 (9th Cir. 1993). See also United States v. Tushnet,
2
526 F.3d 823, 824 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Krasinski, 545 F.3d 546, 553
(7th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED
3