
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Marleen SHILLINGFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-490-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 7, 2015.
    
      Douglas P. Morabito .and Marc H. Sil-verman, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Deirdre M. Daly, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, CT, for Appellee.
    Vito A. Castignoli, Milford, CT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judge, and JANET BOND ARTERTON, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Janet Bond Arterton, of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Marleen Shilling-ford appeals from a judgment of conviction dated January 29, 2014 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Thompson, /.), folloydng her guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h).

Shillingford contends that her sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment is substantively unreasonable. We disagree. “[Wjhen conducting substantive review, we take into account the totality of the circumstances, giving due deference to the sentencing judge’s exercise of discretion, and bearing in mind the institutional advantages of district courts.” United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 190 (2d Cir.2008) (en banc). Our limited, “deferential” role is “to identify those sentences that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” Id, at 191.

The undisputed sentencing range of the United States Sentencing Guidelines for Shillingford’s offense level and criminal-history category is 63 to 78 months’ imprisonment. The district court granted her a downward departure from that range on the motion of the government under section 5K1.1 of the Guidelines. We . detect no indication of unreasonableness in the district court’s thorough explanation of the resulting 36-month sentence. Shilling-ford disagrees with the weight that the district court assigned to various aggravating and mitigating factors, but as an appellate court “we do not consider what weight we would ourselves have given a particular factor.” Id. “Rather, we consider whether the factor, as explained by the district court, can bear the weight assigned it under the totality of circumstances in the case.” Id. In this case, we have no difficulty concluding that the factors identified by the district court at sentencing reasonably bear the weight assigned them. Shillingford’s sentence is not an abuse of discretion.

We have considered Shillingford’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.  