United States of America v. Sang Kom Soth

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SANG KOM SOTH,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-10169
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00010-EJG-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Edward J. Garcia, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 7, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, TASHIMA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Sang Kom Soth (“Soth”), a career offender pleading guilty to
possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, see 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), argues his sentence is procedurally and substantively
unreasonable.
FILED
JAN 04 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

1 In light of Soth’s concession at oral argument that he is not challenging the
extent of the departure apart from the reasonableness of the sentence as a whole,
we do not address separately the procedural reasonableness of the extent of the
district court’s departure.
2
We have jurisdiction to review Soth’s sentence for reasonableness. United
States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2006). After thoroughly
considering the parties’ arguments and the record below, we simply cannot
conclude that Soth’s sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. 1 We
affirm the district court.
Soth also contends the district court should have allowed his counsel to
withdraw immediately before it announced Soth’s sentence, or at least should have
held a hearing on the question. Earlier, Soth’s counsel had challenged Soth’s
presentence report for overstating his criminal history; immediately before
sentencing him, the district court told Soth’s counsel that her advocacy led the
court to consider Soth’s history more closely than it otherwise might
have—ultimately to Soth’s detriment. Soth argues that the district court’s
statement is akin to a finding that his counsel behaved incompetently, and that it
therefore should have resulted in an inquiry into his satisfaction with his
representation. There is a vast difference, however, between an offhand remark
that an argument drew the court’s attention to an unfavorable fact and a finding

-- 2 of 3 --

3
that the person making the argument acted incompetently. Soth’s position is
without merit. All pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --