
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jacob WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-4016-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 15, 2014.
    Nicholas J. Pinto, New York, NY, for Jacob White.
    Kevin Dooley, Rajit S. Dosanjh, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, NY, for United States of America.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant Jacob White appeals from the District Court’s October 2, 2013 judgment convicting him, following his guilty plea, of three violations of the conditions of his supervised release, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), and sentencing him to 24 months’ imprisonment. Defendant challenges only his sentence on appeal. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review criminal sentences for “reasonableness” under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 188 (2d Cir.2008) (en banc). A sentence is substantively unreasonable “only in exceptional cases where the trial court’s decision cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). See generally United States v. Park, 758 F.3d 193, 199-201 (2d Cir.2014).

Upon review of the record and relevant law, we conclude that the District Court’s above-guidelines sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment was substantively reasonable. Considering the totality of the circumstances — including the District Court’s emphasis on defendant’s history of drug addiction, his “extensive pattern” of failing to comply with the conditions of his supervised release, the danger he posed to himself and the public, and the high likelihood of recidivism — we cannot conclude that the District Court’s sentence was outside “the range of permissible decisions” or otherwise an abuse of discretion. Park, 758 F.3d at 200; Cavera, 550 F.3d at 189.

We have considered all of the arguments raised by defendant on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, the October 2, 2013 judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.  