USA V. TUAN VU, No. 16-30223 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 14 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-30223 D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00120-JCC-2 v. TUAN A. VU, AKA Chico, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 8, 2017** Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Defendant Yuan Vu (“Vu”) appeals his conviction for multiple counts of possession, distribution, and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances following a nine-day jury trial. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). for Vu has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Vu has also filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he largely challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and, in particular, the credibility of a co-defendant who testified against him. No government brief has been filed. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83-84 (1988), discloses no meritorious issues for appeal. We have also considered the arguments asserted in Vu’s pro se supplement brief and find them to be without merit. The jury was given the opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses, and when reviewing for sufficiency of the evidence, we are required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.