
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Tomas SERNA, also known as Thomas Serna, also known as Antonio Madrid, also known as Negro, also known as Leonardo Madrid, also known as Leonardo Madrin, also known as Ramon Madrid, also known as Roman Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-1327-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 25, 2010.
    
      John S. Wallenstein, Parson & Wallenstein LLP, Garden City, NY, for Appellant.
    Susan Corkery and Walter M. Norkin, Assistant United States Attorneys, and Benton J. Campbell, United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, for Appel-lees.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges, and BRIAN M. COGAN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Brian M. Cogan, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant Tomas Serna pleaded guilty in the District Court to one count of conspiring to distribute (and to possess with intent to distribute) 50 grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(l)(A)(iii), 846. He also pleaded guilty to one count of distributing (and possessing with intent to distribute) 50 grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(iii). The District Court determined that Serna was a Career Criminal Offender under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”). As a result, his Guidelines sentencing range was 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment. The District Court sentenced Serna principally to 262 months’ imprisonment, the bottom of the Guidelines range. Serna now appeals his sentence, arguing that it “constitute[d] an abuse of discretion” on the part of the District Court.

We review a criminal sentence under a “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir.2008) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). As we have recently explained:

Our review has two components: procedural review and substantive review. We must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence-including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range. Once we have determined that the sentence is procedurally sound, we then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, reversing only when the trial court’s sentence cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.

United States v. Dorvee, 604 F.3d 84, 90 (2d Cir.2010) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

We have considered each of appellant’s arguments and have determined that they are meritless. The District Court committed no procedural error in sentencing defendant, and its decision to impose a sentence of 262 months’ imprisonment was well within “the range of permissible decisions.” Id.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the March 31, 2009 judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.  