UNITED STATES v. DIALLO (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Mamadou Diallo appeals from the May 16, 2017 final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Pauley, J.) convicting him of one count of conspiracy to export and transport stolen motor vehicles in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and sentencing him principally to 24 months’ imprisonment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

On appeal, Diallo argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is longer than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing. “We review a sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Thavaraja, 740 F.3d 253, 258 (2d Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). Substantive reasonableness “focuses on a district court’s explanation of its sentence in light of the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United States v. Gonzalez, 529 F.3d 94, 98 (2d Cir. 2008). We will vacate a sentence for substantive unreasonableness only if it “cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” United States v. Watkins, 667 F.3d 254, 261 (2d Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted).

Diallo argues that the district court failed to adequately consider his troubled childhood, his remorse, and the consequences of removal, particularly since Diallo was granted asylum in the United States based on his political persecution in Nigeria. We disagree. The record makes clear that the district court did consider those facts but found them outweighed by the fact that Diallo engaged in a serious crime over the course of at least a year. The district court acknowledged that Diallo’s sentence was likely to result in his removal but noted “that is something that [Diallo] should have been well aware of throughout his tenure in the United States.” App’x at 216-17. There is no error.

We have considered the remainder of Diallo’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.