T he H on or abl e B r ianM . Co ganof

th e Unit ed S tat es Di s tr

ict Cou r t f or th e Eas te r n D is tr

ict * of New York, sitting by designation. 1 09- 1959- cr Un i t e d S t a t e s v . A d a ms UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER Ru li ng s b y su m m ar

y o r de r do no t h ave pr ece de nt ial e ff ect . Ci ta ti onto a s um m ar y o r de r filed on or

after Ja nu a ry 1, 2007, is permitt ed and is govern ed by Feder al Rule of Appellate P r oc ed ur e 32 .1 a nd th is cou r t’ s Local Ru le 32. 1.1. Whe n c it in g asu m m ar y o r de r ina d oc um en t f

il ed with th is court, a party must cite either the F ederal Appendix or an electroni c database (with t he notati on “summ ary ord er”). A part y citing a summar

y order must serve a copy of it on any part y not r epresented by cou nsel. At a stated term

of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second

Circuit, h eld at the Daniel Pat rick Moynihan United States Courth ouse, 500 P earl Str eet, in th e City of New York, on the 24 day of May, two thou sand ten.

th Pres ent: J OS É A. C AB R ANES ,

RI C HA R D C. W ES L EY ,

Circuit Jud ges , B R I A N M. C O GAN ,

District Judge

. *

_______________________________________ U NI T ED S TATES O F A M ERI CA ,

Appellee,
v. 09- 195 9- cr R A HS A A N A. A DA MS , a lso kn ow n a s Sc ra ms,

De fe ndant -A ppella nt .

________________________________________ F OR AP P ELLEE : Ric hard T. Lunger, Ass istant United States Attorney (Jo AnnM . N avi ckas , As s is tan t U ni te d S tat es At to r ney , of counsel ) f or B ent onJ . Cam pb ell , Unit ed S tat es At to r ney fo r th e Eas te r n D is tr

ict of New Yor k, B r oo kly

n, NY. F OR AP P ELLAN T: Dav idA. L ewis , F ede r al D ef

end er s of New Yor k, I nc. , New Yor k, N Y. Appea l from a judgment of the United States Distr ict Court for the Eastern Dis trict of New York (D eni s R. H ur

ley, Judge ).2

UPON DUE CONSIDERAT ION IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, A DJUDGED, AND DECREED tha t th e j ud gm en t of the Di stri ctC ou rt i s AF F IRME D

. Defendant R ahsaan A dams appea ls fr om a April 6, 200 9 judgment of the Distr ict Court finding th at d ef end ant vio lat ed the t er ms of

hi s s up er vis ed r elea s e ands ent enc ing hi m p r in cip ally t o f

if te en months’ impr

isonment. For

the firs t time, on appea l defendant a rgues that the District Court erred by (1 ) f ail in g t o co ns id er

adeq uat ely c er tai n f

act or s th at i t m us t c on s id er un der 18 U .S. C. § 3 553 (a) ; (

2) faili ng t o ex pl ainadeq

uat ely the r eas on s fo r

th e Di s tr ict Cou r t’ s up war d d epar tu r e f r omth e s ent enc e s ugg es te d b y the U ni te d S tat es Sen te nci ng G ui del in es (“ th e Gu

id eli nes ”) ; an d ( 3) im po s ing a subs tantively

unreasonable sentence on defendant. W e assume the parties’ familiarity with the un der lyi ng f act s andpr oce du r al his to ry of this cas e. Fo llo wing United Sta tes v. B ook er , 543 U.S. 2 20 (2005), a district court has br oad la titude to “im po s e either

a Gu id eli nes s ent enc e or

a no n- Guid eli nes s ent enc e.” United Sta tes v. Sanchez , 51 7 F .3d 651 , 66 0 ( 2dCir . 20 08) ; see also United States v. Cavera , 55 0 F .3d180 , 19 0 ( 2dCir . 20 08) (e n b anc)

. Ac co rdi ng

ly , t he rol e o f th e C ou rt o f A pp ea ls i s li mi te d to ex a mi ni ng asen te nc e f

or re a son a bl en ess, whi ch i s aki n t o r evi ew u nd er an “ abu s e- of

-dis cr et io n” s tan dar d. See Cavera , 55 0 F .3dat 1 90; see also Gall v. Uni ted States, 55 2 U. S. 3 8, 4 1 ( 200 7) (“ [C] ou r ts of

app eals mu s t r evi ew all s ent enc es —wh ether in s id e, j us t o ut s id e, o r

s ignif ican tly ou ts id e the G ui del

in es r ang e—u nd er

a def er ent ial abu s e- of -dis cr et io n s tan dar d. ”) ; cf. Sims v. Blot , 53 4 F .3d117 , 13 2 (

2dCir . 20 08) (“ A di s tr

ict cou r t h as abused its discr etion if it based its ruling on an e rroneous view of the law or on a cle arly erroneous assess ment of the evidenc e, or rendered a dec ision that cannot be loc ated wi thin the range of permi s s ib le d ecis io ns .” (alt er ati on , ci tat io ns , an d quo tat

io n m ar ks omit te d) ). T hi s s tan dar d ap pl ies “bo thto th e [s ub s tan ti

ve r eas on abl ene s s of

th e] s ent enc e it s elf

andto th e pr oce du r es emp lo yedin ar r ivi ng a t the s ent enc e.” Uni te d St ate s v . V er kho gl y ad , 5 16 F.3 d 1 22 , 1 27 (2 d C ir. 20 08 ). Fin a ll y, be ca use defendant faile d to raise his pr ocedural obje ctions before the District Court, we reviewthose claims un der a “p lai n err or ” s tan dar d. See United States v. Villafu erte, 502 F.3d 204, 20 8 (2d Cir. 2007). Fi r s t, def end ant argue s th at his s ent enc e was pr oce du r ally un r eas on abl e be caus e the D is tr ict Cou r t f ail ed t o co ns id er

adeq uat ely c er tai n f

act or s th at i t m us t c on s id er un der 18 U .S. C. § 3 553 (a)

. There is a “str ong presumption that the Dis trict Court faithfully performed its s tatutory obligation to con s id er th e § 35 53(a) f

act or s .” United Sta tes v. F

ernand ez , 44 3 F .3d19, 33 (

2dCir . 20 06) . Ad ams has pr es ent ed n o ev

id enc e t o r ebu t thi s pr es um pt io n. M or eov er , u po n o f ar evi ew o f the r eco r d, we conclude that the Distr

ict Court did, in fact, c onsider the s tatutory factors . Indeed, the District Court di s cus s ed s ever al o f the f

act or s at l engthat the s ent enc ing pr oce edi ng. Acco r di ngl y, we con clu de that the Distr ict Court did not err, much less commit plain error , by failing to consider the factors set for th in 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a

). Next, Ada ms argues that his sentence wa s pr ocedurally unreasonable be cause the District Court3

failed to consider the sentencing rang e ca lcula ted under the Guideline s, and it failed to expla in why the Di stri ctC ou rt d ec id ed to d ep a rt u pw a rd fr om the Guid elin es se nte nc e. E a ch of t he se a rgu me nts f ail s. Fi r s t, th e Di s tr

ict Cou r t didcon s id er

th e s ent enc ing r ang e, b oth wh en i t r ef er enc ed the G ui del

in es ra ng e d uri ng

sen te nc in g p roc ee di ng s a nd wh en itex plic itly a do pte d th e vio la ti on of su pe rvi sed re le a se r epo r t c on tai ni ng the G ui del in es Rang e. Se e V

er kho gl yad , 5 16 F.3 d a t 1 29 (“ [T]h e f a cttha t [d ef

en da nt’ s] probation violation report specifically informed the district court of the sentencing rang e . . . supports the presumption that the able distr ict judge c onsidered this r ange as required by § 3553(a )(4)(B ).”). The Di s tr ict Cou r t al s o ex pl ain ed at

length why it

im po s ed a t er m o f i ncar cer ati onabo ve the s ugg es te d sentencing range . Because Ada ms has not identified any

procedural error below, he nec essarily fails to s ati s fy hi s weig ht y bu r denun der

th e “p lai n err or ” s tan dar d. Acco r di ngl y, we con clu de that

def end ant ’s s ent enc e was no t p r oce du r ally un r eas on abl e. Fi nally, Adam s argue s th at the s ent enc e im po s ed w as s ub s tan ti vely un r eas on abl e. S ub s tan ti ve r eas on abl ene s s is “a co nce pt of fl exi bl e me ani ng, gen er ally lac king pr ecis e bo un dar ies .” Ve rk ho

gl y ad , 516 F.3d at 134 (quotation ma rks and citations omitted). Here, the District Court explaine d at length it s r eas on s fo r

im po s in g the s ent enc e, all o f whi ch ar e r eas on abl e. M or eov er , it was no t u nr eas on abl e for the District Court t o impose a sentence long er than that recommended by the probation officers or the government, bec ause the recommenda tions of the probation officers or

the prosecution do not bi ndth e Di s tr

ict Cou r t’ s di s cr et

io n i n s ent enc ing de fe nd ant s . See United States v. Avello-Alv arez , 43 0 F .3d 543 , 54 5- 46 (

2dCir . 20 05) . We ther ef

or e co ncl ud e that

th e s ent enc e im po s ed b y the D is tr ict Cou r t w as no t s ub s tan ti

vely un r eas on abl e. CONCLUSI ON We hav e co ns id er ed all o f d ef end ant ’s argum ent s andfi ndth em t o b e witho ut mer it

. Ac co rdi ng

ly , fo r th e r ea son s sta te d a bo ve , t he ju dgme nt o f th e D ist ric t C ou rt i s AFFIRMED. FOR THE C OU R

T: Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk