1

08- 1988- cr U ni t ed St at es v. Berg anz a UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER
Rulings by summ ary ord er do no t have precedent ial effect. Citatio n to sum mary or ders filed on or

after January 1, 2007, is permit ted and is gover ned by F ederal Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 32.1 and thi s court’s Local Rule 32.1 .1. When citing a summ ary ord er in a docu ment fi le d wit h t hi s co ur t, a p ar ty m us t c it e ei th er

th e F ed er al

App en di x o r

anel ect r on ic da ta ba se (withthe not ation “sum mary or der”) . A party citin g 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 Un ited Stat es Court of Appeals for t he Second Circuit , held at th e Daniel Pat rick Moynihan Un ited Stat es Courthouse, 500 Pearl St reet, in t he City of New York, on the twenty- sixth day of March, t wo thousand an d ten.
PR E SE NT:

R AL P H K. W I NT ER , J OS É A. C AB R ANES , R EEN A R

A GGI , Circuit Jud

ges .

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

Appellee ,

-v .- No . 08 -1 988 -c r
B YR ON B ER GANZA ,

De fe ndant -A ppe lla nt

.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x F OR DE F EN DAN T- AP P ELLAN T: Jeffr ey C ohn, New Yor k, N Y.
F OR AP P ELLEE : Ani r ud h B ans al, As s is tan t U ni te d St ate s At to r ney

(P r eet B har ar a, United States Attorney for the So uther n D is tr

ict of New Yor k, Katherine Polk Failla , Assis tant Unit ed S tat es At to r ney , of counsel ) Of fi ce o f the U ni te d S tat es At to r ney fo r th e So uther n D is tr

ict of New Yor k, N Y.2

Appea l from an April 22, 2008 order of the United States Distr ict Court for the Southern Di s tr ict of New Yor k ( T ho mas P. Gr

ies a, Judge ).

UPON DUE CONSIDERAT ION, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, A DJUDGED, AND DE CRE ED th at the j ud gm ent of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t b e AF F IRME D

. Def end ant -a pp ell ant

B yr onB ergan za ( “de fe nd ant ”) was con vic te d p ur s uan t t o a g

ui lt y pl ea ent er ed o n Augus t 1 0, 2 006 of con s pi r in g t o i mp or t c ocai ne an d t o dis tr ib ut e co cain e with kno wled ge andin te nt th at i t w ould be i mp or te d, invio lat io n o f 2 1 U. S.C. §§ 963, 952(a ), and 959(a), a nd of
con s pi r in g t o dis tr

ib ut e co cain e invio lat

io n o f 2 1 U. S.C. §§ 846 and 84 1(a)(1). The District Court held a Fatico hear in g, see United States v. Fatico , 60 3 F .2d105 3 ( 2d Cir . 19 79) , t o r es ol

ve dis pu te d f

actual is s ues relating to sentencing a nd, on April 11, 2008 , sentenced de fendant principall y to a term of impris onment of 2 62 mo nth s to b e f

ol lo we d b y a fiv e- ye a r te rm o f sup ervi sed re le a se. W e a ssum e t he pa rti es’ fa milia r it y with the r emainin g f

act s , p r oce du r al his to ry, an d i s s ues onapp eal.

Onapp eal, def

en da nt a rgu es pr

in cip ally that (1 ) the D is tr ict Cou r t e r r ed i n f

in di ng that def end ant “was an o rganizer

or lead er of cr im in al act ivi ty th at i nv ol ve d fiv e or mo r e par ti cip ant s or was otherwise extensive,” a nd, acc ordingly, imposing a role e nhance ment under U.S.S .G. § 3B1.1(a); (2) the Di s tr ict Cou r t er r ed in calc ul ati ng th e dr ug qu ant it y attr ib ut abl e to d ef

end ant , i.e. , m or e than150 kil ogr ams of

coc ain e, an d i n i ncr eas in g de fe nd ant’s off en s e lev el f

r om 36 t o 3 8; a nd(3 ) the s ent enc e im po s ed o n d ef

end ant was pr oce du r ally ands ub s tan ti vely un r eas on abl e.
We revi ew a distr

ict court’s interpr etation and a pplica tion of the Guidelines for “abuse of di s cr et io n. ” See, e.g. , United Sta tes v. Legr o s , 529 F.3 d 470, 474 (2 d Cir. 200 8) . “Adi s tr ict cou r t h as abu s ed its dis cretion if it based its r uling o n a n e rr o n e o u s view of the lawor on a clea rly erroneous ass essment of th e evi den ce, o r

r end er ed a d ecis io n that

cann ot be l ocat ed w

ithi n the r ang e of

per mi s s ib le d ecis io ns .” Sims v. Blot

, 534 F.3d 1 1 7 , 1 3 2 (2 d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation ma rks, citations, and alterations
om it te d)

. B a s e d o n t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , w e c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n f

i n d i n g t hat defendant wa s an organizer o r l e a d e r with respect to the s hipments of cocaine inv olved in the
con s pi r acy. Similarly, de fendant’s argument that the Distr ict Court erred in cal c u l a ti n g the quantity of
coca ine attributable to defenda nt and increa sing de fendant’s offense level by two points is without merit

. The District Court fully considered and rejec ted defe n d a n t’s argument that the infor mant providing the in fo r mat io n as to th e qu ant

it y of coc ain e was no t c r edi bl e, see App ’ x a t 111. W e ca nnot find err or in the District C o u r t ’ s ev al u at

i o n o f t h e e v i d en ce o r d et er m i n at

i o n s r eg ar d i n g th e qu an t i t y o f co caine attributable to defendant.

Def end ant als o ch all eng es th e r eas on abl ene ss of hi s s ent enc e as a who le. We r evi ew ch all eng es to th e r eas on abl ene s s of

a s ent enc e, “ whe th er

in s id e, j us t o ut s id e, o r

s ignific a ntl y ou ts id e t he 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. ” Gall v. Uni ted States, 12 8 S. Ct. 586 , 59 1 (2 007 ). Se e Sims

, 53 4 F .3dat 1 32; see also U n i t ed States v. Cavera , 55 0 F .3d180 , 18 8 n .5 ( 200 8) (e n b anc) (c all in g f or a “p ar ti cul arly d ef

er ent ial fo r m o f a bus e- of

-dis cr et io n r evi ew” i n ev alu ati ng as ent enc e’s pr oce du r al an d s ub s tan ti

ve r eas on abl ene s s ), cert. denied , 12 9 S. Ct. 273 5 (

200 9)

.3

The District Court did no t e rr —much less “abuse its dis cretion”—in imposing a 262 -month sentence on defendant in light of the circumstances and f acts in the record. The record shows th a t the Di s tr ict Cou r t p r op erly calculat ed the ad vis or y Gu id eli nes r ang e, duly co ns id er ed the f act or s lis te d i n 1 8 U.S.C . § 3553(a

), and st ated its reasons f or ass igning the sentenc e it did. Additiona lly, ba sed on the record and f

acts cited by the Distr

ict Court in assigning defendant’s sentence, it cannot be s a i d th a t the
s ent enc e im po s ed “ cann ot be l ocat ed w

ithi n the r ang e of

per mi s s ib le d ecis io ns .” Si ms, 53 4 F .3dat 1 32.

CONCLUSI ON
We ha ve considered ea ch of defendant’s arguments on appea l and find them to be without merit. For the reasons s tated above , we A FFI RM the judgment of the District Court.

FOR THE C OU R

T,
Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk of Court