U.S. v. Luong, No. 01-10468.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Canby |
| Citation | 471 F.3d 1107 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John That LUONG, aka Tony; Johnny; Thang; Cuong Quoc Dao; John Dao; Duong; Thanh; Ah Sinh; That Luong; Ah Sing, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Huy Chi Luong, aka Chi Fei; Jimmy Luong, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hoang Ai Le, aka Ah Hoang, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mady Chan, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 01-10468.,No. 01-10470.,No. 01-10469.,No. 01-10471. |
| Decision Date | 26 December 2006 |
v.
John That LUONG, aka Tony; Johnny; Thang; Cuong Quoc Dao; John Dao; Duong; Thanh; Ah Sinh; That Luong; Ah Sing, Defendant-Appellant.
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Huy Chi Luong, aka Chi Fei; Jimmy Luong, Defendant-Appellant.
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Hoang Ai Le, aka Ah Hoang, Defendant-Appellant.
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Mady Chan, Defendant-Appellant.
Page 1108
William L. Osterhoudt, San Francisco, CA; Dennis P. Riordan, Riordan & Horgan, San Francisco, CA; Gary K. Dubcoff, San Francisco, CA; and George C. Boisseau, Santa Rosa, CA; for the defendants-appellants.
Nina Goodman, Appellate Section, Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. CR-96-00094-MHP-01, CR-96-00094-MHP-02, CR-96-00094-MHP-07, CR-96-00094-MHP-13.
Before CANBY, THOMPSON, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
CANBY, Circuit Judge.
John That Luong, Huy Chi Luong, Hong Ai Le, and Mady Chan appeal their convictions and sentences for various crimes relating to their involvement in a criminal enterprise that engaged in robberies of computer companies and in heroin trafficking.1 In this opinion2 we address only one issue of statutory interpretation raised by the appellants. The statute in question authorizes a judge, upon proper showing, to authorize "interception of . . . electronic communications within the territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the judge is sitting." 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3). The issue is whether this statute authorized the district court in the Northern District of California to authorize interception of communications to and from a mobile phone used by John Luong when that phone and its area code were located outside of the court's territorial jurisdiction but the government's listening post was located within it. We join several of our sister circuits in holding that the district court had jurisdiction because the intercepted communications were first heard by the government within the court's district.
I. Background
On August 1, 1995, a judge in the Northern District of California issued an order authorizing the interception of communications to and from a mobile phone, used by John Luong, with the number (916) 204-6889. Land line telephones with the 916 area code are located in the Eastern District of California, not the Northern District. Both the subscriber's billing address and the mobile service provider were located in the Eastern District of California.
The district court's order was based on the application of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State, No. 59
...but the target of the investigation and the receiving phone were located in the Western District of Wisconsin); United States v. Luong, 471 F.3d 1107, 1110 (9th Cir.2006) (affirming the trial court's admission of evidence gathered under a wiretap order issued by the United States District C......
-
United States v. Gonzalez-Renteria, Criminal Action 1:17-cr-0292-ELR-AJB
...in all courts of appeals to address the issue. See United States v. Henley, 766 F.3d 893, 911-12 (8th Cir. 2014); United States v. Luong, 471 F.3d 1107, (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910, 914-15 (7th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 531 U.S. 953 [ ] (2000); United Stat......
-
United States v. Kazarian, 10 Cr. 895 (PGG)
...Their motions will be denied as moot. 2. Courts in other jurisdictions have followed Rodriguez. See, e.g., United States v. Luong, 471 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Ramirez, 112 F.3d 849, 852 (7th Cir. 1997); United States v. Denman, 100 F.3d 399, 402-03 (5th Cir. 1996);......
-
U.S. v. Forrester, No. 09-50029.
...wiretap application. We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the wiretap statute. 592 F.3d 977 United States v. Luong, 471 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir.2006). A bifurcated standard of review applies to wiretap necessity findings. First, we review de novo whether a wiretap appli......
-
Davis v. State, No. 59
...but the target of the investigation and the receiving phone were located in the Western District of Wisconsin); United States v. Luong, 471 F.3d 1107, 1110 (9th Cir.2006) (affirming the trial court's admission of evidence gathered under a wiretap order issued by the United States District C......
-
United States v. Gonzalez-Renteria, Criminal Action 1:17-cr-0292-ELR-AJB
...in all courts of appeals to address the issue. See United States v. Henley, 766 F.3d 893, 911-12 (8th Cir. 2014); United States v. Luong, 471 F.3d 1107, (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Jackson, 207 F.3d 910, 914-15 (7th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 531 U.S. 953 [ ] (2000); United Stat......
-
United States v. Kazarian, 10 Cr. 895 (PGG)
...Their motions will be denied as moot. 2. Courts in other jurisdictions have followed Rodriguez. See, e.g., United States v. Luong, 471 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Ramirez, 112 F.3d 849, 852 (7th Cir. 1997); United States v. Denman, 100 F.3d 399, 402-03 (5th Cir. 1996);......
-
U.S. v. Forrester, No. 09-50029.
...wiretap application. We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the wiretap statute. 592 F.3d 977 United States v. Luong, 471 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir.2006). A bifurcated standard of review applies to wiretap necessity findings. First, we review de novo whether a wiretap appli......