The Honorable Brian M. Cogan, of the United S tates District Court for the Ea stern * Distr ict of New York, sitting by designa tion. 1 09- 132 7- cr United States v. Serna UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER Rul ings by s um mar

y or der do no t h ave p r eced ent

ial ef fe ct . Cit ati onto a s um mar y or der filed on or after J anuary 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Fede ral Rule of Appella te Procedure 32. 1 an d thi s cou r t’ s Lo cal Rule 3 2.1 .1. Whencit ing a s um mar

y or der ina do cum ent

filedwith thi s court, a party must cite either the Federal A ppendix or an el ectronic data base (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any

party not r epr es ent ed b y co un s el. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, he ld at the Daniel Pa trick Moynihan United Sta tes Courthous e, 500 Pea rl Street, in the City of New Y ork, on the 25 day of May, tw o thousand and ten.

th PR E SE NT: 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

. *

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

Appellee ,
v. No . 09 -1 327 -c r T O M AS S ER NA , als o kno wn as T ho mas Serna, als o kno wn as Ant onio M adr

id , al s o kno wn as Neg

r o, als o kno wn as Le on ar do M adr

id , al s o kno wn as Le on ar do M adr in , al s o kno wn as Ramo n M adr

id , al s o kno wn as Rom an Ro dr igu ez, De fe ndant -A ppella nt .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -xAlthough the judgme nt of conviction wa s dated March 30, 2009, it w as entered on the 1 Di s tr ict Cou r t d ock et

onM ar ch 3 1, 2 009
. 2 F OR AP P ELLAN T: J oh n S . Wallen s te in , P ar s on& Wallen s te inLLP, Gar denCit y, New Yor k. FOR APP ELL EES: Su s an Co r ker y andWalt er

M . N or kin , As s is tan t U ni te d S tat es At to r ney s , an d B ent onJ . Cam pb ell , Unit ed S tat es At to r ney , Of fi ce o f the U ni te d S tat es At to r ney , Eas te r n D is tr ict of New Yor k. Appea l from a March 31, 2009 judgment of convic tion of the United States Distr ict Court for 1 th e So uthern D is tr

ict of New Yor k ( San dr a L . T own es , Judge ). UPON CONSIDERAT ION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJ UDGED, AN D D ECREED tha t th e D ist ric t C ou rt’ s ju dgme nt i s AF F IRME D
. Defendant-appel lant Tomas Serna pleade d guilty in the District Court to one count of co nsp iri ng

to d ist rib ute (a nd to p osse ss wi th i nte nt t o d ist rib ute ) 5 0 g ra ms o r mo re of c oc ain e b a se in violation of 21 U.S .C. § § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), 846. He a lso pleaded guilty to one count of distribut ing (an d p os s es s ing wi thin te nt to di s tr ib ut e) 50 g

r ams or mo r e of coc ain e bas e invio lat

io n o f 2 1 U. S.C. §§ 84 1(a)( 1) , (

b) (1 )( A) (iii) . T he D is tr

ict Cou r t d et er mi nedth at S er na wa s a Car eer Cr imin al Of fe nd er un der th e Un it ed S tat es Sen te nci ng G ui del in es (“ Guid eli nes ”) . As a r es ul t, hi s Guid eli nes sentencing range was 262 to 327 months’ impris onment. The Distr ict Court sentenced Se rna pr in cip ally t o 2 62 m on th s ’ im pr is on men t, th e bo tt omof

th e Gu id eli nes r ang e. S er na n ow ap peal s his s entence , arguing that it “c onstitut e[d] an a buse of dis cretion” on the part of the Distr ict Court. We r evi ew a cr

imin al s ent enc e un der

a “d ef er ent ial abu s e- of -dis cr et io n s tan dar d. ” United States v. Cavera , 550 F.3d 180, 18 9 (2d Cir. 2008) ( en banc ) ( in te r nal qu ot ati onmar ks omit te d) . As we have rec ently ex plaine d: 1 Ou r r evi ew h as tw o co mp on ent s : p r oce du r al r evi ew an d s ub s tan ti ve r evi ew. 2 We must firs t ensure that the district court committed no s ignifica nt 3 procedural error, s uch as failing to c alcul ate (or improperly calc ulating) the 4 Guid eli nes r ang e, tr eat ing the G ui del

in es as man dat or

y, f ail ing t o co ns id er 5 the § 3553(a ) factors , selecting a sentence ba sed on clea rly erroneous f acts, or 6 failing to ade quately expla in the chosen sentence—i ncluding a n expla nation 7 fo r any d evi ati onfr omth e Gu id eli nes r ang e. O nce we h ave d et er mi nedth at 8 th e s ent enc e is pr oce du r ally s ou nd , we then r evi ew the s ub s tan ti

ve 9 r eas on abl ene s s of th e s ent enc e, r ever s ing only wh en the tr ial cou r t’ s s ent enc e 10 ca nn ot b e l oc a te d wit hi n th e r a ng e o f pe rmi ssib le de ci sio ns.3

United Sta tes v. Do rvee, No. 09-0648-cr, 2010 WL 1852930, a t *4 (2d Cir. May 11 , 2010) (citations and in te r nal qu ot ati onmar ks omit te d)

. We ha ve considered ea ch of appell ant’s arguments and have de termined that they are meritless . The Distr

ict Court committed no procedural error in sentencing defenda nt, and its decision to impose a sentence of 262 months’ imprisonment was well within “the range of permi s s ib le d ecis io ns .” Id

. CONCLUSI ON For t he fore go in g re a son s, t he Ma rc h 3 1, 20 09 ju dgme nt o f c onvi ctio n i s AF F IRME D
.

FOR THE C OU R

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