United States of America v. Ya Yang

Chicago, IL - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute charge. He now appeals his below-guidelines sentence, arguing that the district court erred because it considered an audio file at sentencing that was not publicly available on the court's electronic docket.

Based on his involvement with a drug-trafficking ring, Ya

Yang agreed to plead guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1). Before his plea-and-sentencing hearing, Yang objected to the inclusion of one ounce of methamphetamine in

the drug-quantity calculation listed in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). In response to the objection, the government pointed Yang and the district court to an audio file

of a recorded phone call between Yang and a co-conspirator

that supported the PSR's inclusion of the one ounce of methamphetamine in the drug-quantity calculation. Both Yang

and his counsel acknowledged that they had listened to the

recording before sentencing.

At sentencing, the district court agreed that the audio file

supported the PSR's drug-quantity calculation and overruled

Yang's objection. The district court then sentenced Yang to 30

months' imprisonment, which was 21 months below the bottom of the applicable guidelines range. Yang has appealed

that sentence.

II

Although the parties dispute the proper standard of review, this appeal fails under any standard. Yang argues only

that the district court committed reversible error because it

considered an audio file at sentencing that was not publicly

available on the court's electronic docket. But he has not explained how that amounts to error. District courts routinely

review evidence at sentencing that is not publicly available on

the court's docket.

No. 21-1059 3

Moreover, to the extent Yang argues that the appellate record is insufficient without electronic access to the recording

on the district court's docket, the federal judiciary's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF) does not

support the submission of audio files.1 Instead, like other exhibits not available electronically on CM/ECF, audio files are

maintained by the district court, which transmits those files to

the court of appeals if requested. See Circuit Rule 10(a)(2)

("The clerk of the district court must prepare and hold any

confidential record or exhibit not available electronically on

the district court docket. If the court of appeals requests any

such document, the district court must transmit it to the court

of appeals.”); FED. R. APP. P. 11(b)(2). That is what happened

here. The government sent the district court an audio file,

which Yang and his counsel reviewed before sentencing, and

that submission was recorded on the docket. See R. 270-2; R.

271. After Yang appealed his sentence to this court, the circuit

clerk requested and received the audio file from the district

court. All judges on this panel thus had an opportunity to review the recording.

Because Yang has not shown that the recording needed to

be made publicly available on the court’s docket or that the

district court failed to maintain the audio file for appellate review, there was no error.



AFFIRMED