Opinion ID: 6337968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Imposition of Prison Sentence and Fine

Text: Perez next challenges his sentence on substantive and procedural grounds. We “review sentences ‘under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.’” Sampson, 898 F.3d at 311 (quoting United States v. Young, 811 F.3d 592, 598 (2d Cir. 2016)). We find substantive error “only in exceptional cases where the trial court’s decision ‘cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.’” United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Rigas, 490 F.3d 208, 238 (2d Cir. 2007)). We find procedural error where, inter alia, the district court “makes a mistake in its Guidelines calculation,” “does not consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors,” or “fails adequately to explain its chosen sentence.” Id. at 190. “If we ‘identify procedural error in a sentence, but the record indicates clearly that the district court would have imposed the same sentence in any event, the error may be deemed harmless, avoiding the need to vacate the sentence and to remand the case for resentencing.’” United States v. Kent, 821 F.3d 362, 367–68 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Mandell, 752 F.3d 544, 553 (2d