United States v. Tang Nguyen
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13396
8th Cir.2014Background
- Nguyen was convicted of §2342(a) contraband cigarettes trafficking but the jury acquitted on related charges.
- Packages from Vietnam containing untaxed Vietnamese cigarettes were delivered to Nguyen and her sister Kim's addresses in Nebraska.
- ICE conducted border searches of packages addressed to Nguyen, uncovering 11,680 cigarettes without Nebraska tax stamps.
- Nguyen admitted knowing some packages came to her residence and that Kim picked them up, but she did not open or sell the cigarettes.
- Kim testified to receiving untaxed cigarettes and distributing some profits, while Nguyen did not discuss tax status with her, and had no license to import or sell cigarettes.
- The district court instructed that “knowingly” applied to both trafficking over 10,000 cigarettes and bearing no evidence of tax payment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “knowingly” requires knowledge of tax status | Nguyen argues she lacked knowledge of tax requirements. | Government argues knowledge of the facts sufficed; cigarettes bore no tax stamp | Knowingly requires knowledge of the facts constituting the offense, not necessarily tax law. |
| Whether Nguyen knowingly trafficked contraband cigarettes | There is no evidence she knew the cigarettes bore no tax stamps. | Evidence showed she knowingly received packages containing cigarettes. | Insufficient proof that Nguyen knowingly trafficked contraband cigarettes; acquittal required on Count VI. |
| Whether misstatement of record unsupported conviction | Government misquoted trial record about Nguyen’s knowledge of taxation. | N/A | Record showed only that Nguyen knew packages contained cigarettes; no proof she knew they bore no tax stamps; conviction reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (1998) (knowingly requires knowledge of facts, not necessarily knowledge of the law)
- United States v. Bruguier, 735 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 2013) (en banc; applying ‘knowingly’ to each element of a crime unless context dictates otherwise)
- Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419 (1985) (establishes specific-intent standard for some statutes, not applied to §2342(a) here)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard for jury verdicts)
- Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978) (double jeopardy requires acquittal where no sufficient evidence for conviction)
- Elshenawy v. United States, 801 F.2d 856 (6th Cir. 1986) (reaffirmed interpretation of knowledge as applied to §2342(a))
- Baker v. United States, 63 F.3d 1478 (9th Cir. 1995) (discussed in context of knowing violations under §2342(a))