United States v. Tu Anh Nguyen, No. 21-2995 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
A jury convicted three Defendants (“D1”, “D2”, and “D3”) of conspiring to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. The jury also convicted D1 and D3 of possessing 100 kilograms or more of marijuana with intent to distribute and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. All three Defendants appealed the denial of a motion to suppress and challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. They concede officers properly stopped their vehicle for commercial inspection but argue the officers subsequently exceeded the permissible scope of the inspection. In addition, D2 appealed his sentence.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the officers developed probable cause before their actions exceeded the permissible scope of a commercial inspection and Defendants’ other arguments lack merit. The court found that the district court properly concluded that asking a driver for log books, bills of lading, and safety equipment; inquiring as to ownership, registration, and insurance; inspecting a vehicle’s exterior; and looking in a trailer for safety equipment or to inspect cargo securement are all proper aspects of a Level II inspection. Further, the district court did not commit clear error in finding the facts as a whole, including reliance on the dog, provided probable cause. Further, as to D2’s sentencing challenge, the district court did not clearly err in finding him to be a leader and applying an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. Section 3B1.1. The resulting within-range sentence is presumptively reasonable on appeal, and D2 presents no persuasive arguments to suggest this is the “rare case” where such a presumption is rebutted.
Court Description: [Melloy, Author, with Colloton and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. The district court did not err in determining the state trooper developed probable cause for the search of defendants' trailer trough the facts discovered during a proper commercial safety inspection and a contemporaneous open-air dog sniff; the evidence was sufficient to support defendants' conspiracy convictions and firearms convictions; the district court did not clearly err in imposing a Guidelines Sec. 3B1.1 leadership role enhancement for defendant Le, and his within-guidelines range sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
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.