Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael ELDER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-16
Citations: 214 F. App'x 6
Docket Number: No. 05-3975-cr
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael ELDER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges, and EDWARD R. KORMAN, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 214
Pages: 6–7

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael ELDER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-3975-cr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Jan. 16, 2007.
Terry Granger, Granger Law Offices, Buffalo, NY, for Appellant.
James P. Kennedy, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney (Terrance P. Flynn, United States Attorney, on the brief), United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, NY, for Appellee.
PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges, and EDWARD R. KORMAN, District Judge.
The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Defendant-appellant Michael Elder appeals from an amended judgment of conviction sentencing him to a term of 195 months' imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of committing bank robberies in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and of possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The sentence imposed by District Court was the minimum sentence within the applicable Guidelines range.
On appeal, defendant argues pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) that his sentence is unreasonable because the District Court, inter alia, (1) imposed a greater term of imprisonment than was necessary or appropriate under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); (2) failed to adequately consider whether unwarranted disparities will be created by sentencing defendant similarly to defendants convicted of other, more serious crimes.
We have considered each of defendant's arguments and find them to be without merit. In particular, we conclude upon a review of the record that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable and that the District Court did not err when considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Accordingly, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.