United States v. Hung Quoc Bui, 500 F. App'x 658

Bui appeals a 78-month sentence for three counts of Access Device Fraud and three counts of Aggravated Identity Theft.
Bui challenges consecutive sentences on two Access Device Fraud counts under 18 U.S.C. § 3584 and § 5G1.2.
Bui also challenges consecutive sentences on two Aggravated Identity Theft counts under § 5G1.2, Application Note 2(B).
He argues the district court erred in treating multiple victims as controlling for consecutive sentencing on the Identity Theft counts.
The panel affirms the sentence, holding no plain error and that the district court properly exercised discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court err in applying §5G1.2(c) for Access Device Fraud counts?	Bui contends guidelines constrained consecutive sentences.	Bui relies on Guidelines; court had discretion under §3584.	No error; court permissible to impose consecutive sentences under §3584.
Did the court err under §5G1.2, App. Note 2(B), for Identity Theft counts?	Bui argues improper application of 5G1.2 to consecutive sentences.	Court addressed factors under 5G1.2 and 3553(a).	No plain error; court properly considered 5G1.2, App. Note 2(B).
Was the finding of multiple victims for Identity Theft counts clearly erroneous?	Bui asserts error in treating multiple victims as relevant to grouping.	Court had discretion; note 2(B) is permissive, not mandatory.	Harmless error or within discretion; not reversible.

United States v. Rangel, 697 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing; plain error review on first-time challenge)
United States v. Steffen, 251 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 2001) (Guidelines cannot deprive district court of discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b))
United States v. Marcus, 130 S. Ct. 2159 (U.S. 2010) (plain-error framework for sentencing)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (S. Ct. 2009) (plain-error standard for constitutional or structural errors)