U.S. v. Tam

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to below-Guidelines, 65-month term of incarceration on charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering. While defendant argued that he was entitled to new sentencing hearing because Dist. Ct. failed to ask him questions required under Rule 32(i)(1)(A) as to whether he had opportunity to read presentence report and discuss it with his counsel, any error was harmless, where defendant’s counsel affirmatively stated that defendant had seen presentence report and discussed it with counsel, and where defendant failed to identify any objection to presentence report that he would have made if given opportunity. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in failing to grant defendant’s request for downward adjustment on his offense level due to his minor role in charged conspiracy, where, contrary to defendant’s contention, Dist. Ct. actually considered five factors identified by Sentencing Commission when determining whether defendant should receive mitigating role adjustment. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant was not entitled to said adjustment, where defendant went through elaborate process in laundering money through Chinese bank accounts to hide drug proceeds, and where defendant received equal share of profits arising out of said scheme.