United States v. Avan Nguyen
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6390
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Nguyen, owner of a wholesale salon-equipment business, pleaded guilty to aiding and assisting in preparation of a false corporate tax return and agreed to forfeiture of $1.1M.
- PSR initially calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 12–18 months but noted extensive evidence of third-party structured deposits (~$4.9M) and $3.2M in cash found at Nguyen’s business, much in $10,000 bundles.
- The Government declined to charge Nguyen with structuring; district court held an evidentiary hearing and reviewed bank records, a Chase warning letter about CTRs, and witness testimony.
- District court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Nguyen likely knew of and participated in customers’ structuring, denied acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, and varied upward to a 36‑month sentence (plus supervised release and fine).
- Nguyen appealed, challenging procedural and substantive reasonableness of the upward variance; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness: May district court rely on uncharged structuring by preponderance to support upward variance? | Govt (and court below) argued sentencing judge may find uncharged conduct by preponderance and consider it for variance. | Nguyen argued insufficient evidence to support finding he participated in structuring, so use of that finding for variance was procedurally errorful. | Court held district court properly found participation by preponderance using circumstantial evidence; no procedural error. |
| Factual sufficiency of knowledge element for structuring | Govt relied on Chase letter, subsequent account changes, cash patterns, and business experience to show Nguyen knew banks’ CTR obligations. | Nguyen disputed receipt/effect of the letter and said explanations for account changes were legitimate. | Court found inference of knowledge reasonable given letter, timing of account changes, cash bundles, and round $9,000 deposits. |
| Substantive reasonableness of 36‑month upward variance | Govt/court argued variance justified by dishonesty magnitude, aggravated conduct, retention of millions, deterrence, need to protect public, and inadequacy of fines alone. | Nguyen argued court over-weighted alleged structuring, penalized Government’s forfeiture choices, and ignored clean record and restitution. | Court gave deference to district court’s balancing under §3553(a) and held sentence was not an abuse of discretion. |
| Standard of review for preserved objections | N/A | Nguyen contested reasonableness; court addressed preservation issue. | Court applied reasonableness review (abuse of discretion) and rejected Nguyen’s claims; plain-error discussion was unnecessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sets procedural and substantive review framework for district court variances)
- Mares v. United States, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005) (sentencing judge may find facts by preponderance to support non‑Guidelines sentence)
- Caldwell v. United States, 448 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2006) (permitting common‑sense inferences from circumstantial evidence at sentencing)