1 2

- 1972

- cr

United States v. R obertson

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT



## SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a

party mu st cite either the Federal Appendix 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 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square , in the City of New York, on the 13 th
day of Ma y , two thousand thirteen

.

PRESENT: J OSÉ A. C ABRANES

,

B ARRINGTON D. P ARKER

, R AYMOND J. L OHIER

, J R

.,

Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA

,

Appell ee ,

v. No. 1 2

- 1972

- c r

W ILLIAM G

. R OBERTSON

,

Defendant

- Appell ant

.

_____________________________________

FOR APPELLEE : Kevin J. Doyle, Gregory L. Waples, Assistant United States Attorney s for Tristram J. Coffin

, United States Attorney for the District of

Vermont

, Burlington, VT

.2

FOR DEFENDANT

- APPELL ANT : Bruce R. Bryan, Bryan Law Firm, Syracuse,

NY.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Vermont ( J. Garvan Murtha

, J udge )

.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgme nt of conviction is AFFIRMED

.

On November 2, 2011, d efendant

- appellant William George Robertson (“R obertson ” or

“ defendant”) pleaded guilty to a single count of f ailure to register as a sex offender in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2250

. T he District

Court subsequently sentenced defendant to 2 7 months’ imprisonment and five years of supervised

release

. On appeal, R obertson challenges his sentence a s substantively unreasonable.

W e review all sentences using an abuse

- of

- discretion standard. See United States v. Cavera , 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc) . Our review typically consists of a two

- step process. First we “must [ ] ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence

— including an explanation for any deviation f rom the Guidelines range.” Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “[W] e then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, reve rsing only when the trial court’s sentence ‘ cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions. ’ ” United States v. Dorvee

, 616 F.3d 174, 179 (2 d Cir. 2010) ( quoting Cavera , 550 F.3d at 189).

Having r eview ed the record, we have considered all of defendant’s arguments on appeal and

find them to be without merit. Defendant’s sentence of 27 months’ impr isonment i s within the relevant Guidelines range and is otherwise substantively reasonable, substantially for the reasons given by the District Court at the defendant’s sentencing hearing of April 18, 2012. 1 Accordingly

,

we AFFIRM the April 19 , 201 2 judgment of conviction of the District Court

.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

1 We note that, among other considerations, the District Court found that the defendant had not undergone treatment as a sex offender during a lengthy prior term of incarceration, despite having multiple opportunities to do so, and

recommended that Robertson undergo treatment as part of his 27

- month sentence.