Th e H on ora ble Ed ward R . K orm an , Se nio r Unit ed St ate s D ist

ric t Ju dg e f

or t he Ea ste rn * Districtof New York, sitting by designat ion. 09 -53 03 -cr US A v . P en a (D e L a R os a) UNITED STA TES COU RT OF AP PEALS FO R T HE SE CO ND CI RC UI T SUMMARY ORD ER R ul i ngs by s um m ar y or der do not have pre c e dent i al ef fec t . C i t at i on t o a s um m ar y or der f i l e d on or af t e r Ja nuar y 1 , 20 07 , i s pe r m i t t e d a nd i s go ve r ne d by Fe de r al Rul e of Appel l at e Pr oc e dur e 3 2. 1 a nd th is c o u r t’s L o c a l R u le 3 2 .1 .1 . W h e n c itin g a s u m m a r y o r d e r in a d o c u m e n t file d w ith th is c o u r t, a p art y m u st ci t e e i t h er t h e Fed eral A p p end i x or an el ect ron i c datab ase ( w i t h t h e notat i on “sum m ary or de r ”) . A par t y c i t i ng a s um m ar y o r de r m us t s e r ve a c opy of i t on an y p ar t y n ot r e pr e s e nt e d by c o u n se l. At a stated Term of

the United Stat es Court of Appeals for the Second Cir cuit, held a t the Daniel Patri ck Moynihan United St ates Courthouse , at 500 Pearl Street, in t he City of New York, on the 1 day of October, two thousand te n.

st Present: ROBERT A. KATZ MANN,

DEBRAANN LIVING STON,

Ci rcu it J ud ges , EDWARD R. K ORMAN,

District Judge
. *

____________________________________________________________ UNITED STA TES OF AMERICA, Ap pe lle e , - v - No . 0 9-5 30 3-c r JOSE PENA , BALDEMA R ORTEG ON, NAH UM GOICOH EA, HECTOR ARCINIEGA , JUAN YB ARRA, JO HN YBA RRA, SAMUEL BAUGHMAN , De fen da nts, GUADA LUPE DE L A ROSA , De fen da nt- Ap pe lla nt.

____________________________________________________________ Fo r D ef en dant- Ap pe llant: Arza F eld m an , F eld m an& F eld

m an , Unio nd ale , N.Y.2

Fo r App ell ee: Be njam in A . N af tal is, Kathe rin e P olk

Fa ill a, Assistant Unit ed States Att orneys, for Pr eet Bharara, United St ates Attorney for the Southern Distr ict of New York, New York, N.Y. Ap pe al f rom the Un ite d S tat es D istric t C ourt f or t he So uth ern

Di str ict of Ne w Y ork (Koeltl, J. ). ON CONSIDERA TION WHEREOF, IT IS HERE BY ORDERED, ADJU DGED, AND DE CREED that th e ju dg m ent of the dis tri ct c ourt i s AFFIRMED
. Defendant-appella nt Guadalupe De La Rosa appeal s from a judgm ent of conviction i n the United States DistrictCourt for the Southern Dis trictof New York (Koeltl, J. ), e nte red De cem be r 28 , 2 00 9, fo llo wi nghis entryof a p lea of gu ilty to on e co unt of

co ns pir ingto distri bute and possess with intentto distr ibute 500 grams and more of cocaine in violat ion of 21 U. S. C. §§ 81 2, 84 1(a )(1 ), 8 41 (b) (1) (B ), and 84 6. On ap pe al, De La

Ro sa c ha lle ng es h is s enten ce of 228 m onths’ imprisonment, to be followed by a term of 10 years’ supervi sed relea se. On Ap ril 16 , 2 01 0, the go ve rnm ent m ov ed to d ism iss De La

Ro sa’ s ap pe al b ase d o n D e L a R os a’s kn ow ingan d v olu

ntary w aiv er o f h is a

pp ell ate rig hts , and

fo r summ ary

af fi rm an ce. By

ord er dated June 28, 2010, a pane l of this Court gra nted the government’s m otion “to the extent [De La Ro sa] see ks to a

pp eal his ter

m of im pri so nm ent, b eca

us e h e h as n ot d em on str ate d th at the wa ive r of his ap pe llate r ights i s une nf orc eab le. ” Se e Un ite d S

tates v . D e L a R os a , No. 09-5303-cr (2d Ci r. Jun e 2 8, 20 10 ) (O rde r gr antin g m oti on to d ism iss ). T he pane l de nie d th e m oti on , h ow ev er, “w ithres pe ct t o [ De La

Ro sa’ s] ch all en ge to h is t erm of su pe rvi sed rel eas e (whic h d oe s n ot f all wi thi n th e sc op e o f t

he ap pe al w aiv er) .” Id. W e assume the parties ’ familiarity with the
rem ain ingfa cts an d p roc ed ura l hi sto ry o f t

his cas e.3

The sole questi on before us is whetherthe term of supervised rel ease imposed by the dis tri ct c ourt w as s ub stanti ve ly r eas on ab le. “R eas on ab len ess rev iewis akin to r ev iewfo r ab us e of discretion, unde r which we considerwhether the se ntencing judge exceeded the bounds of allowable di screti on[,] . . . com mitted an error of law in the course of exerci sing discr etion, or
m ad e a c learlyerr on eo us fi nd ingof fa ct. ” United States v. Will iams , 4 75 F. 3d 46 8, 47 4 (2 d C ir. 2007) (inte rnal quotat ion marks om itted) . In reviewing t he distri ct court’ s determination for substanti ve reasonabl eness, we “take i nto account the totali ty of the circumstances, gi ving due de fe ren ce t o th e se nte nc ingjud ge ’s e xe rci se o f d isc ret ion , and be ari ngin m ind

the ins tit uti on al advanta ge s o f d istric t co urt s. ” Un ite d S tates v . C av era , 5 50 F. 3d

18 0, 19 0 (2 d C ir. 20 08 ) (e n banc ). “ Our ro le i s n o m ore than to ‘patro l th e b ound ari es o f r eas on ab len ess ,’” Un ite d S tates v . Ste wa rt , 590 F.3d 93, 135 (2d Cir. 2009) (quot ing Ca vera , 5 50 F. 3d at 1 91 ), and

we ge ne ral ly will set a side a dist rict court’s subst antive det ermination only in exce ptional ca ses where the
co urt ’s d eci sio n “ ‘cann ot b e lo cat ed wi thi n th e rang e o f p erm iss ibl e d eci sio ns ,’” Ca vera , 550 F.3d at 189 (quoting United States v. Rigas , 490 F.3d 208, 238 (2d Cir. 2007)). He re, De La

Ro sa argu es t

hat hi s 1 0-y ear

ter m of su pe rvi sed rel eas e is su

bs tantiv ely unreasonable because (1) he will be 77 year s old at the time of his release from prison, thus reducing the risk of recidi vism; (2) the Probati on Office recomm ended an 8-year term of supervised r elease; and (3) a 10-ye ar term “is unjust ified” given tha t De La Rosa’s term of imprisonm ent “was unreas onably long.” Def.’s Br. at 19. I t is cle ar from the record of De La Ro sa’ s se nte nc inghe ari ng , h ow ev er, that th e d ist ric t co urt car ef ull y f ash ion ed a se nte nc e th at “re co gn ize [d ] t

he ser iou sn ess of

the of fe ns e an d th e n eed

fo r de ter ren ce, ” S .A . 6 7, wh ile als o tak ingint o a cco unt D e L a R os a’s “ag e an d p hy sic al c on dit ion ,” S. A. 70 . N ota bly , th e d ist

ric t court’s de cision to i mpose a 10-year term of supervised rele ase was specifica lly predi cated upon4

its de cis ion

to i m po se a ter m of im pri so nm ent su

bs tantia llybe low

the bo tto m

of the gu ide lin es
ran ge . T he dis tri ct c ourt’ s co nc ern s re gardi ngthe lik eli ho od of rec idi vis m

we re r eas on ab le i n lig ht o f D e L a R os a’s co ns ide rab le c rim ina l hi sto ry, an d th e co urt ’s s enten ce a pp rop riatel y reflected the need for rehabil itati on and protect ion of the public. Under t hese circ umstances, we can conclude that the 10-ye ar term supervised r elease — which was t wo years above the
m an dator y m ini m um ter m of 8 y ear s b ut w ell be low

the m ax im

um ter m of lif e — wa s substanti vely reasonable and well wit hin the range of permissible decisions
. W e have consider ed De La Rosa’s remaining arguments and find them to be without
m eri t. A cco rdi ng ly, fo r th e f ore go ingrea so ns , th e ju dg m ent of the dis tri ct c ourt i s AFFIRMED.

FOR THECOURT : CATHERINE O'H AGAN W OLFE