1 11-2562 United States v. Gallagher



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED**
**ON OR AFTER J** **ANUARY 1,**  **2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY**  **F EDERAL**  **R ULE OF**  **A PPELLATE**  **P ROCEDURE**  **32.1 AND THIS COURT**  **’ S**  **L OCAL**  **R ULE**  **32.1.1. W** **HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**
**DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A**  **PPENDIX OR AN**
**ELECTRONIC DATABASE (**  **WITH THE NOTATION “**  **SUMMARY ORDER ”).**  **A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST** 
**SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL .**  **At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 19 th** **day of April, two thousand twelve.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **Chief Judge ,**  7 **BARRINGTON D. PARKER,** 8 **PETER W. HALL,** 9 **Circuit Judges**

**.** 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 12 **UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,** 13 **Appellee ,**  14 15 **-v.- 11-2562** 16 17 **THOMAS E. GALLAGHER,** 18 **Defendant-Appellant ,**  19 20 **SYED A. BABAR, AKA ALI, AKA ASAD,** 21 **DAVID AVIGDOR, NATHAN M. RUSSO, REHAN** 22 **QAMAR, MOHAMMAD SALEEM, RAB NAWAZ,** 23 **MORRIS I. OLMER, WENDY WERNER,** 24 **MARSHALL ASMAR,** 25 **Defendants**

**.** 26 27 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 282 **FOR APPELLANT:** Marjorie M. Smith, Law Office of 1 Marjorie M. Smith, Piermont, 2 N.Y. 3 4 **FOR APPELLEE:** Susan L. Wines, Eric J. Glover, 5 Assistant United States 6 Attorneys, Sandra S. Glover, 7 Assistant United States Attorney 8 (of counsel), for David B. Fein, 9 United States Attorney for the 10 District of Connecticut, New 11 Haven, Conn. 12 13 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 14 Court for the District of Connecticut (Thompson, J. ). 15 16 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 17 **AND DECREED** that the judgment of the district court be 18 **AFFIRMED**

. 19 20 21 Thomas E. Gallagher appeals from a judgment of 22 conviction for one count of making false statements to the 23 federal government in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. We 24 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, 25 the procedural history, and the issues presented for review. 26 27 Gallagher argues that his within-Guidelines 60-month 28 sentence--the statutory maximum--is unreasonable. 29 Reasonableness review “involves consideration not only of 30 the sentence itself, but also of the procedures employed in 31 arriving at the sentence. Reasonableness review does not 32 entail the substitution of our judgment for that of the 33 sentencing judge. Rather, the standard is akin to review 34 for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Fernandez , 443 35 F.3d 19, 26-27 (2d Cir. 2006) (citatio ns omitted). 36 37 Gallagher was an essential party in a four-year-long 38 mortgage fraud conspiracy that resulted in $3 million in 39 losses to various lenders and the Federal Housing 40 Administration. He continued the scheme after receiving 41 warnings about his conduct, and he used his position of 42 influence in the community to vouch for the character of a 43 co-conspirator. As such, his sentence “can[] be located 443 within the range of permissible decisions.” United States 1 v. Cavera , 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc) 2 (internal quotation marks omitted) (discussing review for 3 substantive reasonableness). 4 5 Gallagher’s contentions that the court did not 6 adequately justify his sentence are also unavailing. After 7 the court analyzed Gallagher’s arguments for a downward 8 departure and the government’s arguments for a within9 Guidelines sentence, the court concluded that the 10 “aggravating facts and circumstances here [do] not simply 11 outweigh the positives, . . . they overwhelm them.” See 12 also United States v. Jones , 531 F.3d 163, 174 (2d Cir. 13 2008) (“Sentencing is not, after all, a precise science. 14 Rarely, if ever, do the pertinent facts dictate one and only 15 one appropriate sentence.”) (citation omitted). 16 17 18 Finding no merit in Gallagher’s remaining arguments, we 19 hereby **AFFIRM** the judgment of the district court. 20 21 22 FOR THE COURT: 23 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 24 25