UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Phu Chi TRUONG, Defendant-Appellant.
Decided: March 12, 2020
Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Gabriel Podesta, Assistant United States Attorney, DOJ - Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee Seema Ahmad, Brianna Fuller Mircheff, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA - Federal Public Defender's Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
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 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, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008).
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.