United States v. Diem Quang Nguyen

90 F. App'x 189
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMarch 17, 2004
Docket03-1468
StatusUnpublished

This text of 90 F. App'x 189 (United States v. Diem Quang Nguyen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Diem Quang Nguyen, 90 F. App'x 189 (8th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Diem Quang Nguyen appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court 1 for the District of Minnesota upon his guilty plea to mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2. The district court sentenced appellant to 36 months imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, a $10,000 fine, and restitution. Counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing *190 for reversal that the district court erred at sentencing in imposing a 2-level increase for obstruction of justice and in denying a 2-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility.

The district court did not clearly err in finding those calculations justified by Nguyen’s misrepresentations about his financial condition to the probation officer preparing his presentence report (PSR), see U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 comment. (n.4(h)) (obstruction adjustment applies for providing materially false information to probation officer with respect to PSR), and did not err in granting the enhancement and denying the reduction based on the same conduct, see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 comment, (n.4) (conduct which supports obstruction-of-justice enhancement “ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility”). See United States v. Calderon-Avila, 322 F.3d 505, 507 (8th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (clear error review of factual findings and de novo review of Guidelines construction).

Following our independent review of the record, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonirivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 F. App'x 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-diem-quang-nguyen-ca8-2004.