United States v. Thung Van Huynh
884 F.3d 160
3rd Cir.2018Background
- Huynh pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud for a multi-state scheme that used stolen identities to fraudulently purchase luxury watches (losses ≈ $815,553).
- He obtained stolen customer data from a car-dealership employee, arranged counterfeit IDs/credit cards, picked stores to target, paid travel, coordinated co-conspirators, and sold watches to a fence; he retained proceeds and handled finances.
- The PSR applied a two-level Guideline enhancement for relocating the scheme to evade law enforcement (USSG §2B1.1(b)(10)(A)) and a four-level organizer/leader enhancement (USSG §3B1.1(a)); Huynh objected to both.
- At sentencing the Government reserved the right to present relevant information but took a neutral/partly supportive position on the relocation issue; the District Court applied both enhancements and sentenced Huynh to 70 months.
- Huynh appealed, arguing the Government breached the plea agreement by not opposing the relocation enhancement, that the relocation enhancement was inapplicable, and that the organizer/leader enhancement was unsupported.
Issues
| Issue | Huynh's Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to oppose the relocation enhancement | The plea stipulations fixed the offense level at 20 and excluded other enhancements; Government should have opposed relocation | Plea agreement expressly reserved the Government’s right to provide relevant information and respond to the court; Government remained neutral and did not advocate for the enhancement | No breach — Government did not violate the plea agreement; its conduct was permitted by the agreement |
| Whether the relocation enhancement applies (did Huynh relocate scheme to evade authorities?) | Movements were temporary trips/expansion; travel was for economic reasons, not to evade law enforcement | Court found targeting distant, dispersed stores, avoiding repeat targets, use of different airports, and post-contact changes in locations supported relocation to evade detection | Enhancement affirmed — District Court’s factual finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether Huynh was an organizer/leader under §3B1.1(a) | Huynh was an equal partner with Phil Nguyen, split profits, lacked decision-making/control over others | Record shows Huynh recruited participants, arranged IDs, decided targets, coordinated and paid travel, controlled finances and receipts | Enhancement affirmed — District Court’s finding that Huynh exercised control and scheme was otherwise extensive was not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the scheme involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive | Argued two unnamed actors (dealership employee, fence) should not count as participants or functional equivalents | Court treated them as non‑participants employed with specific criminal intent whose services were necessary and peculiar to the scheme | Court’s conclusion that scheme was otherwise extensive upheld; counting functional equivalents was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davenport, 775 F.3d 605 (3d Cir. 2015) (plea agreements interpreted as whole; government must adhere to bargain)
- United States v. Hines-Flagg, 789 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2015) (multi-jurisdictional operation may not be "relocation" when home base remains constant)
- United States v. Helbling, 209 F.3d 226 (3d Cir. 2000) (organizer/leader requires exercise of control; factors to consider and treatment of functional equivalents)
- United States v. Starnes, 583 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2009) (§3B1.1(a) is fact-driven; appellate review deferential)
- United States v. Moscahlaidis, 868 F.2d 1357 (3d Cir. 1989) (whether government breached plea agreement is a question of law)