United States v. Manila Vichitvongsa
819 F.3d 260
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- In June 2011 Vichitvongsa participated in two violent, armed home robberies (LaVergne and Smith County, TN) targeting suspected drug dealers; each involved firearms and resulted in injuries and theft of some items.
- He was indicted on eight counts (for the two robberies): two Hobbs Act conspiracy counts, two drug‑conspiracy counts, and four § 924(c)(1) counts (one § 924(c) count tied to each conspiracy per robbery).
- A jury convicted him on all counts; the district court imposed a combined 1,219‑month sentence driven largely by consecutive § 924(c) mandatory minima.
- On separate traffic stop facts, Vichitvongsa was tried and convicted in a different case of being a felon in possession of a firearm based on a gun found in a car he was driving plus inculpatory jail calls.
- On consolidated appeal, the Sixth Circuit addressed (1) whether a single firearm act that simultaneously furthers two conspiracies can support multiple § 924(c) convictions, (2) sufficiency of the Hobbs Act interstate‑commerce nexus, (3) multiplicity/double jeopardy for conspiracy counts, and (4) sufficiency of evidence for felon‑in‑possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether one firearm use that simultaneously furthers two conspiracies supports two § 924(c) convictions | Govt: different predicate offenses (Hobbs Act and drug conspiracy) justify separate § 924(c) convictions | Vichitvongsa: a single choice to use/possess a gun cannot sustain multiple § 924(c) convictions | Vacated one § 924(c) conviction for each robbery; court holds multiple § 924(c) convictions require multiple uses/carries/possessions (statutory interpretation) |
| Sufficiency of interstate‑commerce nexus for Hobbs Act conspiracies | Govt: targets were drug dealers; drug dealing implicates interstate commerce (de minimis link) | Vichitvongsa: insufficient evidence tying the robberies to interstate commerce | Affirmed; evidence of drug trafficking and testimony about out‑of‑state/foreign sources satisfied the de minimis nexus |
| Multiplicity / double jeopardy for multiple conspiracy counts | Vichitvongsa: the two robberies were one continuing conspiracy and charging separate conspiracies violated double jeopardy | Govt: evidence showed separate agreements, different participants and plans | Affirmed district court; applying Sinito factors court found separate conspiracies (nature/scope and other factors supported multiplicity) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for felon‑in‑possession conviction | Govt: constructive possession proved by gun in car he was driving plus recorded jail calls identifying him with the gun | Vichitvongsa: mere proximity to a gun and co‑occupant/owner mean no possession | Affirmed; constructive possession established by proximity plus inculpatory recorded calls and voice ID |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 25 F.3d 1335 (6th Cir.) (en banc) (single firearm act during simultaneous predicate offenses constitutes one § 924(c) offense)
- United States v. Rentz, 777 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir. 2015) (textual analysis requiring a distinct use/carry/possession for each § 924(c) conviction)
- United States v. Taylor, 13 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 1994) (924(c) unit of prosecution is the underlying offense; interpretive baseline)
- United States v. Nabors, 901 F.2d 1351 (6th Cir. 1990) (multiple § 924(c) convictions upheld where firearm uses were distinct/non‑simultaneous)
- United States v. Burnette, 170 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 1999) (separate § 924(c) convictions lawful where firearm uses were independent events)
- United States v. Graham, 275 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2001) (multiple § 924(c) convictions allowed for non‑simultaneous, distinct predicate acts)
- Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995) (interpretive background concerning § 924(c) possession/usage principles)
- United States v. Ostrander, 411 F.3d 684 (6th Cir.) (robbery of drug dealers can satisfy Hobbs Act interstate‑commerce element)