UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-4836
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VIRIG SOK CHHENG,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 18-4858
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY SUNNY PAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Spartanburg. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (7:16-cr-00776-TMC-1; 7:16-cr-00776-
TMC-6)
Submitted: July 31, 2019 Decided: August 20, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James R. Battle, II, BATTLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Conway, South Carolina; Wallace H.
Jordan, Jr., WALLACE H. JORDAN, JR., PC, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellants.
Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Virig Sok Chheng appeals the 328-month sentence imposed following his guilty
plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute methamphetamine
and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012), and 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(A), (D) (West 2013 & Supp. 2019). Anthony Sunny Pan appeals the
292-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to the same drug conspiracy and a
conspiracy to conduct money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i),
(h) (2012). We consolidated the appeals. Appellate counsel have filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the sentences imposed by the district court
are procedurally reasonable. Chheng and Pan were notified of their right to file a
supplemental pro se brief, but Chheng did not do so. Pan has filed a supplemental pro se
brief, arguing that the district court erroneously calculated his attributable drug amount at
sentencing and challenging the effectiveness of his trial counsel. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
“We review a sentence for reasonableness ‘under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.’” United States v. McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). Chheng and Pan question whether the district
court erroneously determined their offense levels and criminal histories in calculating
their advisory Sentencing Guidelines ranges. The district court specifically discussed the
factual basis for the four-level enhancement for Chheng’s role as an organizer of the
conspiracy, and that determination is not clearly erroneous. See United States v.
3
Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 630-31 (4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard of review). Chheng
and Pan did not raise the remaining objections at sentencing, so we review for plain error.
United States v. Riley, 856 F.3d 326, 328 (4th Cir. 2017) (stating standard of review).
Pan’s attributable drug weight properly included jointly undertaken criminal activity by
coconspirators. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3(a)(B) (2016); see § 1B1.3
cmt. n.3. The record does not plainly establish that Pan did not receive appointed counsel
in a prior conviction for which the district court assigned criminal history points. And the
district court properly assigned criminal history points for Chheng’s prior California
convictions, because the Guidelines provide that a defendant’s criminal history is
calculated based on “any sentence previously imposed upon adjudication of guilt,”
without any reference to the substantive law of the sentencing jurisdiction. USSG
§ 4A1.2(a), (c). We conclude that Chheng’s downward variant sentence and Pan’s
within-Guidelines sentence are procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Finally, Pan questions the effectiveness of his trial counsel for requesting a
downward variance instead of objecting to the drug weights attributed to him at
sentencing. We do not consider ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal “[u]nless
an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record.” United
States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507 (4th Cir. 2016). Given that the district court correctly
calculated Pan’s advisory Guidelines range, we conclude that he fails to meet this high
standard.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire records in these cases and
have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s
4
judgments. This court requires that counsel inform Chheng and Pan, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Chheng or
Pan requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Chheng and Pan.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5