United States v. Paul Tran
683 F. App'x 421
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Paul Sinh Tran, a chiropractor, pleaded guilty to willfully aiding preparation of a materially false 2010 tax return (26 U.S.C. § 7206(2)) and to structuring currency transactions to evade reporting (31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3)).
- Tran failed to report significant cash patient payments to his tax preparer, resulting in underreported income and an IRS liability of $36,575.70 for 2009–2011.
- Tran made roughly $196,190.71 in structured cash transactions, over $100,000 of which occurred in 2010 while he committed the tax fraud.
- Tran’s plea agreement and PSR included a two-level Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2S1.3(b)(1) (knowledge that funds were proceeds of unlawful activity or intent to promote unlawful activity) and another two-level enhancement under § 2S1.3(b)(2); total offense level calculated at 17.
- At plea and sentencing hearings Tran and his counsel acknowledged the plea terms and Guidelines calculation; no objections were raised to the PSR. District court sentenced Tran to 27 months, restitution, and forfeiture; Tran appealed only the § 2S1.3(b)(1) enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tran waived appellate challenge to § 2S1.3(b)(1) enhancement | Tran argued he did not waive right to contest enhancement despite not objecting at sentencing | Government argued Tran explicitly agreed to the enhancement in plea agreement and in court, so appeal waived | Waived: Tran explicitly agreed on the record; appeal of enhancement barred |
| If not waived, whether district court plainly erred applying § 2S1.3(b)(1) | Tran contended the enhancement was improper on the merits | Government contended evidence and Tran’s concessions showed intent to promote illegal activity (false tax returns) | No plain error: even on merits Tran conceded transactions intended to promote illegal activity |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (establishes waiver vs. forfeiture framework)
- Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (defining waiver as intentional relinquishment of a known right)
- United States v. Priddy, 808 F.3d 676 (explicit agreement in plea waives appellate challenge)
- United States v. Mabee, 765 F.3d 666 (distinguishing mere failure to object from explicit agreement)
- United States v. Fowler, 819 F.3d 298 (similar principles on plea-stage concessions)
- United States v. Aparco-Centeno, 280 F.3d 1084 (plea/sentencing admissions can waive later challenges)
- United States v. McBride, 826 F.3d 293 (concession in plea and sentencing hearing waives challenge)
- United States v. Moore, [citation="654 F. App'x 705"] (acknowledgment in plea and change-of-plea hearing waives appellate claim)