United States v. Hoang Ai Le

MEMORANDUM

Hoang Ai Le (“Le”) appeals the 240-month sentence imposed by the district court. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the sentence imposed by failing to consider a yet-to-be-imposed sentence in another prosecution pending in the Eastern District of California. A sentence imposed by a district court “must be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes of punishment.” United States v. Crowe, 563 F.3d 969, 977 (9th Cir.2009); 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). A possible future sentence does not fit squarely within any of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) which district courts must consider during sentencing.

Moreover, from a practical standpoint, it is impossible for a district court to consider during sentencing in one case a sentence in another case which has yet to be handed down. The district court would have had to make an educated guess as to what the subsequent sentence in the Eastern District would be, including whether that sentencing judge would run the sentence concurrent or consecutive to the subject sentence. Educated…