United States v. Xi Andy Lieng
548 F. App'x 397
9th Cir.2013Background
- Defendant Xi "Andy" Lieng, convicted by jury for conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute marijuana, and for manufacturing marijuana; sentence affirmed on appeal.
- Lieng, a Vietnam native, alleged difficulty understanding proceedings and sought a courtroom interpreter (raised at sentencing).
- District court denied an interpreter, applied a four-level leadership enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), and resolved objections from the Presentence Report against Lieng.
- Lieng moved under Rule 33 for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; the district court denied the motion.
- On appeal, Ninth Circuit reviewed: interpreter denial for clear error, role enhancement for clear error, Rule 32 compliance de novo/for abuse of discretion in practical effect, and Rule 33 denial for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lieng) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Courtroom interpreter under the Court Interpreters Act | Lieng argued he needed an interpreter because of limited English comprehension | Government argued record showed Lieng spoke and understood English; interpreter not required | Affirmed: district court did not err in denying interpreter (no showing of primary non-English speaker) |
| Four-level leadership sentencing enhancement (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a)) | Lieng disputed that he was an organizer/leader or that offense involved sufficient participants/control | Government pointed to evidence Lieng exercised control over others and enterprise was extensive | Affirmed: clear error standard; record supported applying four-level enhancement |
| Compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3) (PSR objections) | Lieng claimed district court failed to follow Rule 32 in resolving PSR disputes | Government noted district court ruled on disputed PSR matters against Lieng at sentencing | Affirmed: district court complied—objections were resolved and Rule 32 requirements met |
| Rule 33 motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence | Lieng argued newly discovered evidence warranted new trial | Government argued Lieng failed to meet the five-part test for newly discovered evidence and lacked diligence | Affirmed: denial upheld; Lieng did not satisfy the five-part test and district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lim, 794 F.2d 469 (9th Cir. 1986) (trial court has discretion on use/availability of courtroom interpreters)
- Gonzalez v. United States, 33 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 1994) (review of interpreter rulings for clear error)
- United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2000) (leadership adjustment reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Whitney, 673 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2012) (no specific fact findings required but record must support control for role enhancement)
- United States v. Ingham, 486 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2007) (evidence supporting control may justify enhancement)
- United States v. Sarno, 73 F.3d 1470 (9th Cir. 1995) (denial of new-trial motion reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Endicott, 869 F.2d 452 (9th Cir. 1989) (defendant bears significant burden to show abuse in denying new trial)
- United States v. Steel, 759 F.2d 706 (9th Cir. 1985) (standards for Rule 33 motions)
- United States v. Harrington, 410 F.3d 598 (9th Cir. 2005) (five-part test for newly discovered evidence)
- United States v. Kulczyk, 931 F.2d 542 (9th Cir. 1991) (articulation of elements for newly discovered evidence test)