United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2680

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Lee Vang, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 13, 2010

Filed: January 25, 2011

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Lee Vang pleaded guilty to possessing with the intent to distribute 500 grams

or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of

methamphetamine and a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of

marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1), and was sentenced by the

district court1

 to 84 months’ imprisonment. Vang appeals, contending that the

sentence is procedurally infirm and substantively excessive. We affirm.

1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.
Vang and his co-defendant, Yer Yang, were stopped on Interstate 80 in

Cheyenne County, Nebraska, for a traffic violation. During the stop, a drug detecting

canine circled the vehicle and indicated that drugs were present. The subsequent

search yielded approximately 8.5 pounds of marijuana and a mixture or substance

containing more than 150 grams of methamphetamine. 

The district court concluded that Vang was eligible for the “safety valve”

provisions of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Accordingly, it calculated his base

offense as level 29 with a criminal history category I, for a Guidelines range of 87 to

108 months’ imprisonment. The government requested a sentence within this

recommended range; Vang sought a sentence of no more than 60 months’

imprisonment. The district court sentenced Vang to a term of 84 months’

imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release and a $100 special

assessment. On appeal, Vang contends that this sentence exceeds that which is

sufficient and necessary to comply with the factors Congress set out in 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a)(2) and that it pays unnecessary deference to the Guidelines. 

We review appeals from sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. United

States v. Zastrow, 534 F.3d 854, 855 (8th Cir. 2008). We undertake a two-part

inquiry. First, we ensure that the district court “did not commit significant procedural

error, such as miscalculating the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as

mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on

clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain why a sentence was chosen.” 

Id. (citation omitted). If the decision is procedurally sound, we next consider the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Id. 

 We conclude that the court committed no procedural error in sentencing Vang. 

At the sentencing hearing, Vang’s counsel argued that 60 months’ imprisonment

would constitute an adequate sentence, noting that it was Vang’s first drug-related

offense, that he was an educated person and could become a productive member of

-2-
society, and that he had strong family ties that would help him become that. Vang

apologized for his actions and explained that he had learned much more about the

severity of methamphetamine’s effects than he had known at the time. The district

court weighed this argument and testimony against the seriousness of the offense and

the magnitude of the social problems associated with methamphetamine use. A

sentencing court need not “categorically rehearse” each of the § 3553(a) factors so

long as it is clear from the record that the court considered those factors. United

States v. Hernandez, 518 F.3d 613, 616 (8th Cir. 2008) (citation and quotation

omitted). We are more than satisfied that the district court met that standard here, for

the transcript makes clear that the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors in

imposing the sentence it did. 

 Vang’s sentence was also substantively reasonable. We find no merit to

Vang’s claims that the sentence is excessive or that the district court was

unnecessarily deferential to the Guidelines. Indeed, we have previously observed that

when a sentencing court imposes a sentence more lenient than that called for by the

Guidelines, “it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not

varying downward still further.” United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th

Cir. 2009). So too here. Given the recommended range and the surrounding

circumstances, a sentence of 84 months’ imprisonment is substantively reasonable and

the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing it. 

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-