United States v. Sang Huynh

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 19, 2026
• Docket: 25-4375
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-4375 Doc: 28 Filed: 03/19/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4375

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SANG THANH HUYNH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:19-cr-00057-MSN-11)

Submitted: February 27, 2026 Decided: March 19, 2026

Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, GREGORY, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Stephanie Kessler, KESSLER DEFENSE LLC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Lindsey Halligan, United States Attorney, Todd W. Blanche, Deputy Attorney General, Robert K. McBride, First Assistant United States Attorney, Daniel J. Honold, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4375 Doc: 28 Filed: 03/19/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Sang Thanh Huynh appeals the 192-month sentence imposed following his guilty

plea to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g);

conspiracy to participate in racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, 1962(d);

conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846;

and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B). On appeal, Huynh

argues that the district court reversibly erred when imposing certain discretionary

conditions of his supervised release. The Government partially agrees and concedes that

our precedents require us to vacate Huynh’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

A “confession of error by the government respecting a criminal conviction” does

not “relieve this court of the performance of the judicial function to examine independently

the errors confessed.” United States v. Brainer, 691 F.2d 691, 693 (4th Cir. 1982) (citation

modified). Rather, even when the Government “concedes the correctness of [the]

defendant’s view of the law” on appeal, we must still carry out that duty. Id.

After review, we agree that there is a material discrepancy between the district

court’s pronouncement of two special conditions of Huynh’s supervised release and the

special conditions contained in the written judgment. Our precedents dictate that this error

requires us to vacate Huynh’s sentence and remand for full resentencing. * See United

States v. Lassiter, 96 F.4th 629, 640 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 208 (2024).

* We therefore do not address Huynh’s contention that the district court also did not adequately pronounce the standard conditions of supervised release contained in the written judgment.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4375 Doc: 28 Filed: 03/19/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

Accordingly, we vacate Huynh’s sentence and remand for resentencing. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

VACATED AND REMANDED