United States v. Phu Truong

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 12 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK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