Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Maximino PEREZ-MORALES, also known as Max Perez, also known as Jorge Perez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-02
Citations: 227 F. App'x 69
Docket Number: No. 05-4987-cr
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Maximino PEREZ-MORALES, also known as Max Perez, also known as Jorge Perez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges, RICHARD M. BERMAN, Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 69–70

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Maximino PEREZ-MORALES, also known as Max Perez, also known as Jorge Perez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-4987-cr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
July 2, 2007.
Isabel McGinty, Hightstown, NY, for Appellant.
Paige M. Petersen, Assistant United States Attorney (Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney, Alyssa A. Qualls, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee.
PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges, RICHARD M. BERMAN, Judge.
The Honorable Richard M. Berman, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Defendant-appellant appeals from a judgment of conviction in the District Court, sentencing him principally to 60-months' incarceration following a guilty plea to illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.
Defendant-appellant's argument that the District Court violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by considering his criminal history and previous illegal reentries for sentencing purposes is without merit. See United States v. Sheikh, 433 F.3d 905, 905-06 (2d Cir.2006); United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103, 112 (2d Cir.2005). It is unclear whether defendant-appellant also argues that the sentence was otherwise procedurally or substantively unreasonable. See Crosby, 397 F.3d at 114-15. Assuming he does further dispute the reasonableness of his sentence on appeal, we conclude that the District Court made no procedural error and that the sentence is not unreasonably long. The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.