Case ID: f-appx_423/html/0109-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Luis SOSA-URAGA, a/k/a Juan Guiteres, a/k/a Juan Guiterres, a/k/a Juan Gutierrez, a/k/a Luis Rey Sosa-Vraga, a/k/a Daniel Santos, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-2096-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 3, 2011.
    David A. Lewis, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., Appeals Bureau, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.
    James J. Pastore, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney (Katherine Polk Failla, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: WALKER, B.D. PARKER, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant Luis Sosa-Uraga appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered May 21, 2010, convicting him of illegal reentry into the United States subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). The district court sentenced Sosa-Uraga principally to a term of 46 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

We review a district court’s sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness. United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir.2008) (en banc). Sosa-Uraga challenges the reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that the district court failed to adequately explain its reasons for imposing its sentence. He acknowledges, however, that his counsel did not object at the close of sentencing to the statement of reasons that the court provided.

The record reflects that the district court gave detailed reasons supporting the sentence it imposed. We conclude that the sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable, and that the district court committed no error, much less plain error. See United States v. Marcus, — U.S.-,-, 130 S.Ct. 2159, 2164, 176 L.Ed.2d 1012 (2010). The district court acted well within its “considerable sentencing discretion.” United States v. Jones, 531 F.3d 163,174 (2d Cir.2008).

We have considered all of Sosa-Uraga’s other contentions on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.