United States v. Phu Truong

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 12 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-50127
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:19-cr-00026-PA-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PHU CHI TRUONG,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 3, 2020**
Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Phu Chi Truong appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 37-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Truong contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
consider and address his arguments in favor of a non-custodial sentence. We
review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103,
1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the
district court considered the parties’ arguments and concluded that a within-
Guidelines sentence was warranted to sanction Truong’s breach of the court’s trust,
afford adequate deterrence to future criminal conduct, and protect the public. The
district court was not required to address specifically each of Truong’s arguments.
See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359 (2007); United States v. Perez-Perez,
512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
2 19-50127