USA v. Nguyen et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
v. 	No. 2:03-CR-20039-001
NHAN VAN NGUYEN 	DEFENDANT/PETITIONER
ORDER
The Court has received a report and recommendations (Doc. 245) from United States
Magistrate Judge Mark E. Ford. No objections have been filed and the deadline for objections has
passed. The Magistrate recommends that Petitioner’s motion to vacate (Doc. 235) be dismissed
with prejudice. The Court has reviewed this case and finds that the report is proper, contains no
clear error, and should be and hereby is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
Petitioner has also filed a motion (Doc. 239) to reduce his sentence on the basis of the 2014
amendments to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. 	This motion is identical to a motion
Petitioner filed in another case before this Court. 	See United States v. Nhan Van Nguyen, Case
No. 2:10-CR-20057-001, Doc. 309 (W.D. Ark. June 27, 2016). In that case, the motion was denied
because Petitioner’s guidelines sentence was calculated using the career offender guideline. 	In
this case, the motion to reduce his sentence is denied because Petitioner is no longer serving a
sentence. In this case, Petitioner was sentenced on February 11, 2004 to a term of imprisonment
for 70 months and a term of supervised release for 5 years. 	(Doc. 119). 	He began his term of
supervised release on January 28, 2009. On November 3, 2011, Petitioner’s term of supervised
release was revoked, and he was sent back to prison for a term of 18 months, to run concurrent
with his sentence in the other case. 	The term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of his
supervised release—that is, the term of imprisonment imposed in this case—has expired. There
Case 2:03-cr-20039-TLB Document 246 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
is no sentence to reduce.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to reduce his sentence (Doc. 239)
is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to vacate (Doc. 235) is DENIED and
his petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. No certificate of appealability shall issue.
Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of February, 2017.
/s/P. K. Holmes , III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:03-cr-20039-TLB Document 246 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>