## Facts

- ATF agents ran an undercover sting using a fictional “stash-house robbery” involving a purported drug cartel, cocaine, and cash; no stash house or drugs existed.
- Senh Phun organized a crew including Saraeun Min, Khem Roeutanck Un, Marc Eric Johnson, Jan Stevens, and James Dwayne McCalister to commit the robbery.
- Defendants met with undercover agents, discussed detailed plans, and agreed to steal multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine and money, anticipating firearm use during the robbery.
- On the planned date, defendants arrived at a storage facility with a van to meet agents and prepare for the robbery; officers arrested them before any robbery began.
- Min gave a post-arrest confession describing his participation; the other defendants did not testify.
- Defendants were indicted and, after a joint jury trial in the Eastern District of Virginia, convicted of multiple offenses including Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy, drug-distribution conspiracy, and firearms offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying severance and trying the defendants jointly.
2. Whether admitting Min’s redacted confession with a limiting instruction violated the Confrontation Clause under *Bruton*.
3. Whether factual impossibility (because the stash house and drugs were fictitious) is a defense to conspiracy charges.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support findings on drug quantity and possession of firearms in furtherance of the conspiracies.
5. Whether admitting an officer’s interpretive testimony as lay opinion under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 was an abuse of discretion.
6. Whether the court’s reprimand of defense counsel during closing argument prejudiced defendants and required reversal.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed all convictions.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance; joint trial was appropriate for a conspiracy prosecution with overlapping proof.
- Admission of Min’s redacted confession, coupled with a limiting instruction, did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
- Factual impossibility was not a defense to conspiracy; the agreement and steps toward the planned robbery sufficed even though the target was fictional.
- Evidence supported the drug quantity attributed to the conspiracy and supported the § 924(c) firearms convictions.
- The district court permissibly admitted the officer’s interpretive testimony under Rule 701 as rationally based on perception and helpful to the jury.
- The reprimand of counsel during closing did not warrant reversal because defendants failed to show prejudice and the jury received a curative instruction.

## Legal Principles

- Conspiracy liability turns on the agreement to commit an unlawful act; factual impossibility of completing the objective does not defeat a conspiracy charge.
- A codefendant confession may be admitted in a joint trial without violating *Bruton* if it is redacted to remove names and references to the existence of other defendants and is accompanied by a limiting instruction; inferential incrimination based on linkage with other evidence does not alone create a Confrontation Clause violation.
- Joint trials are favored in conspiracy cases; severance requires a showing of clear prejudice that limiting instructions cannot cure.
- Under Rule 701, lay opinion testimony is admissible when rationally based on the witness’s perception, helpful to the jury, and not based on specialized knowledge.
- Trial-management rulings, including limits on closing argument and judicial admonitions, are reviewed for abuse of discretion; curative instructions are presumed effective absent a strong showing of prejudice.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld convictions arising from a fictional stash-house sting, holding that conspiratorial agreement and preparation are punishable even when completion is factually impossible, and finding no reversible error in the joint trial, admission of a properly redacted confession with instructions, evidentiary rulings, or trial-court management of closing argument.


United States v. Min, 704 F.3d 314 (4th Cir. 2013)