United States v. Trung Dang, No. 17-2285 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's revocation sentence of 60 months in prison after defendant pleaded guilty in state court to first degree computer child pornography and computer exploitation of a child. The court held that the district court did not plainly err in failing to expressly state the applicable sentencing range where the district court considered related guidelines provisions and the discussions reflected an assessment that the offense warranted revocation and a substantial prison sentence; the statutes under which defendant was convicted provided a sufficient basis for the district court's factual findings; the district court did not plainly err in considering the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(A) factors and did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause; and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Court Description: Smith, Chief Judge, Author, with Beam and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - revocation of supervised release. District court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sixty-month sentence to run consecutive to state sentence for computer child pornography and computer exploitation of a child, representing an upward departure from 8-14 month sentencing range. The district court did not plainly err in failing to expressly state the applicable sentencing range, as the court expressly considered related guidelines provisions and the discussions reflected an assessment that the offense warranted revocation and a substantial prison sentence; reliance on the statute under which Dang was convicted provided sufficient basis for the district court's factual findings; the district court did not plainly err in considering the section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors and did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause by sentencing him to imprisonment for conduct that formed the basis of his state conviction. The sentence is not substantively unreasonable. [ October 18, 2018
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.