United States v. Lucy Yang, 685 F. App'x 313

Defendant Lucy Yang pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 100 kg+ of marijuana and was sentenced to 60 months.
Yang sought a downward adjustment under the Sentencing Guidelines' "safety valve" (U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2), which requires providing all truthful information about the offense to the government.
The district court found Yang ineligible for the safety-valve reduction, concluding she made false statements and omitted information in a proffer interview and her written statement.
Yang testified at sentencing attempting to explain discrepancies, but much of that testimony came at the sentencing hearing rather than before it began.
The Government pointed to specific inconsistencies between Yang’s proffer/written statement and her later testimony.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual finding for clear error and affirmed the denial of the safety-valve reduction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Yang qualified for a safety-valve reduction under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2	Yang argued she provided truthful information and cured discrepancies by testifying at sentencing	Government argued Yang made false statements and omitted information in her proffer and written statement	Court held Yang was ineligible; factual finding of untruthfulness not clearly erroneous
Whether sentencing court committed procedural error applying Guidelines post-Booker	Yang contended the court misapplied the safety-valve requirement	Government contended court correctly applied the standard and its factual findings were plausible	Court found no procedural error; Guidelines application reviewed de novo, facts for clear error
Whether Government relied on mere speculation to deny safety valve	Yang argued denial was speculative	Government pointed to specific false statements and omissions	Court held Government offered specific discrepancies rather than mere speculation
Whether post-sentencing hearing testimony could cure earlier failures to disclose	Yang argued her sentencing testimony corrected earlier inconsistencies	Government and court noted disclosures must be provided by start of sentencing hearing and discrepancies remained	Court held belated testimony did not render her eligible; discrepancies persisted

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (establishing procedural/substantive review framework post-Booker)
United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750 (5th Cir. 2009) (standards for substantive reasonableness review)
United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of Guidelines application; factual findings for clear error)
United States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328 (5th Cir. 2011) (clear-error review of safety-valve factual findings)
United States v. King, 773 F.3d 48 (5th Cir. 2014) (factual findings plausible in light of whole record not clearly erroneous)
United States v. Miller, 179 F.3d 961 (5th Cir. 1999) (Government must offer more than speculation to show lack of truthful disclosure)
United States v. Brenes, 250 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 2001) (defendant must disclose information by commencement of sentencing hearing)