USA V. HUNG DONG, No. 17-55716 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 21 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-55716 D.C. No. 8:14-cv-00998-JVS v. MEMORANDUM* HUNG XUAN DONG, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 4, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: MURGUIA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and GUIROLA,*** District Judge. Hung Xuan Dong appeals the district court’s denial of his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. We have jurisdiction * 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). *** The Honorable Louis Guirola, Jr., United States District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, sitting by designation. under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), and we affirm. Dong argues that his counsel was ineffective in failing to timely communicate a three-level reduction offer by the government and incorrectly advising him to reject the offer. At an evidentiary hearing, the district court found Dong’s counsel was credible and Dong was not credible. The district court also found that counsel’s performance was not deficient, and, in any event, Dong was not prejudiced by his counsel’s performance. This Court reviews claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. Beardslee v. Woodford, 358 F.3d 560, 569 (9th Cir. 2004). We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error. Id. The district court did not err in denying Dong’s motion because, even if his counsel was ineffective, Dong suffered no prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 691 (1984) (“An error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment.”). Counsel testified that Dong was not interested in cooperating with the government or pleading guilty, and he would not take a plea that could expose him to a sentence of ten years or more. The district court reasonably found that testimony credible, and Dong’s contrary testimony not credible. Dong’s previous lawyers had recommended that he plead guilty and cooperate, but he instead insisted on pursuing dismissal of the case for government 2 misconduct, an argument his previous lawyers considered frivolous. Thus, Dong has not demonstrated that he would have accepted the plea deal but for counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness. See Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 163 (2012) (“In the context of pleas a defendant must show the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice.”). AFFIRMED. 3
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.
