United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT TRINH'S "MOTION FOR
HARDSHIP CREDIT FOR HARD-TIME SERVED" Re: Dkt. No.
ILLSTON United States District Judge
March 20, 2017, defendant Huy Trinh filed a pro se
“motion for hardship credit for hard-time
served.” Dkt. No. 235. The Court set a briefing
schedule, under which defendant's reply brief was
originally due April 18, 2017. The Court granted the
government an extension of time to file the opposition (which
moved the deadline for the reply to April 26, 2017), and then
granted defendant's request for a further extension, to
May 12, 2017.
15, 2017, the Court received defendant's second request
for an extension of time to file the reply. The Court finds
that defendant has not demonstrated good cause for a further
extension of time, and DENIES the request. The Court will
resolve defendant's motion for “hardtime
credit” based upon the motion, opposition, and the
docket in this case. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court DENIES defendant's motion.
April 29, 2010, agents executed federal search warrants on
six suspected indoor marijuana grow houses. Dkt. No. 1 at 1.
As a result of the search, agents found 1, 198 marijuana
plants. Dkt. No. 142 at 3. In one of the houses, which was
occupied by defendant and his wife, Lan Jin, agents
discovered a semi-automatic pistol loaded with eight rounds
in the magazine under a dresser in what appeared to be the
defendant's bedroom. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. In a hidden
compartment in the same dresser, agents found what appeared
to be a silencer that fit onto the semi-automatic pistol.
Id. That same day, agents arrested defendant, Lan
Jin, and co-defendant Andy Wong for participating in the
marijuana growing operation. Id. at 1-2.
initially appeared before the Court on April 30, 2010. Dkt.
No. 2. On May 7, 2010, Magistrate Judge Spero ordered
defendant detained pretrial, finding defendant was a danger
to the community and a flight risk. Dkt. Nos. 12, 17.
11, 2010, a federal grand jury returned an indictment with
the following charges against defendant: count one for
conspiracy to manufacture, to possess with intent to
distribute, and to distribute marijuana, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(vii); counts
two and three for manufacture and possession with intent to
distribute marijuana, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(vii); count four for possession of a
firearm equipped with a silencer in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
924(c)(1)(B)(ii); count five for felon in possession of a
firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1); and count six for possession of an unregistered
National Firearms Act firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C.
§ 5861(d). Dkt. No. 20.
March 21, 2012, the government filed a superseding
information charging defendant with one count of conspiracy
to manufacture and distribute marijuana and one count of
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime. Dkt. No. 137 at 1-2. On March 23, 2012, defendant
entered into a binding plea agreement with the government
pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(A)
and 11(c)(1)(C), and pled guilty to both counts in the
superseding information. Plea Agreement at 1-4. Under the
terms of the plea agreement, defendant waived both his right
to appeal and to collaterally attack his conviction and
sentence, with the exception of preserving a claim that his
constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel was
violated during the negotiation of his plea agreement.
Id. at 4. The parties agreed that a reasonable and
appropriate disposition of the case under the Sentencing
Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) was a sentence of 180
months imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised
release. Dkt. No. 149 at 2-3. On June 22, 2012, defendant was
sentenced according to the terms of the plea agreement. Dkt.
No. 147. Defendant is currently incarcerated at Federal
Correctional Institution Big Spring in Big Spring, Texas.
5, 2013, defendant filed a pro se motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his
sentence, alleging that his counsel rendered ineffective
assistance. In an order filed November 26, 2014, the Court
denied that motion and denied a certificate of appealability.
Dkt. No. 213. On December 9, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals denied a certificate of appealability. Dkt. No. 228.
August 29, 2016, defendant filed a pro se motion for
a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the U.S.S.G. Dkt. No. 230. On
September 12, 2016, U.S. Probation filed a Sentence Reduction
Investigation Report that stated that because defendant's
original sentence was the statutory mandatory minimum (120
months on Count One, mandatory 60 months consecutive sentence
on Count II), defendant's sentence could not be reduced
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See Dkt.
No. 232 at 2. For that reason, the U.S. Probation Office
recommended against granting the motion. Id. In an
order filed October 13, 2016, the Court denied
defendant's motion to reduce the sentence.
current motion requests that the Court grant him two days of
credit for every day that he spent in pretrial detention at
the Glenn E. Dyer detention facility in Oakland, California.
According to defendant, he spent approximately 852 days in
pretrial detention. Defendant contends that he should be
provided double credit because the conditions at Glenn E.
Dyer detention facility amounted to cruel and unusual
punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
government opposes defendant's motion on numerous
grounds. The government asserts, inter alia, that
because the Court has already sentenced defendant, any
calculation of credit for time served is within the exclusive
province of the Bureau of Prisons. See United States
v. Peters, 470 F.3d 907, 908 (9th Cir. 2006) (per
curiam) (holding district courts lack authority to give
credit for time served, while noting that district courts do
have authority to sentence a defendant to time
served); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S.
817, 824 (2010) (“A judgment of conviction that
includes a sentence of imprisonment constitutes a final
judgment and may not be modified by a district court except
in limited circumstances.”).
Court concludes that defendant has not demonstrated a basis
upon which this Court can grant the requested relief. The
Court also notes that while defendant was at Glenn E. Dyer
detention facility, he did not challenge the conditions at
the facility, nor did defendant request double credit for the
time spent in pretrial detention at the time of his
sentencing in 2012. ...