
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Arlincy ERSKINE, Defendant-Appellant.
    16-464-cr
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 9, 2017
    Appearing for Appellant: Barry D. Lei-want, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Appeals Bureau, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., New York, NY.
    Appearing for Appellee: Alicia Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Emily Berger, Assistant United States Attorney, for Robert L. Capers, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, N.Y.
    
      Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant , Arlincy Erskine appeals from the February 11, 2016 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Ross, J.) sentencing Erskine to fifteen months’ imprisonment, a three year term of supervised release, and a $100.00 special assessment fee after she pled guilty to one count of importation of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1), and 960(b)(3). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of the issue for review.

“Our review of criminal sentences includes both procedural and substantive components and amounts to review for abuse of discretion.” United States v. McIntosh, 753 F.3d 388, 393-94 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Erskine challenges only the substantive reasonableness of her incarcerative sentence. “We will set aside a district court’s substantive determination as to an appropriate sentence only in exceptional cases where the trial court’s decision cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” Id. at 394 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). “In reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, 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. Young, 811 F.3d 592, 598-99 (2d Cir. 2016). “In sum, [substantive reasonableness review] provide[s] a backstop for those few cases that, although procedurally correct, would nonetheless damage the administration of justice because the sentence imposed was shockingly high, shockingly low, or otherwise unsupportable as a matter of law.” United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108, 123 (2d Cir. 2009).

Erskine argues that the district court erred in imposing a fifteen month sentence of imprisonment because the sentence was “greater than necessary[] to accomplish the goals of sentencing” and thus ran afoul of the federal sentencing statute’s overarching command. Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 101, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)).

We cannot, agree. “While we do not presume that a Guidelines sentence is necessarily substantively reasonable, that conclusion is warranted in the overwhelming majority of cases, and thus especially when, as here, a defendant challenges a below-Guidelines sentence.” United States v. Messina, 806 F.3d 55, 66 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). Here, Erskine committed a serious crime—she imported over one and a half kilograms of cocaine into the United States in the false bottom of a suitcase. The district court considered Erskine’s military service, her efforts to obtain her bachelor’s degree, and her role as a single mother to a pre-teen daughter and properly found that these mitigating factors weighed in favor of a below-Guidelines sentence. Indeed, the district court sentenced Erskine to a fifteen month term of imprisonment, one year less than the bottom of the twenty-seven to thirty-three month Guidelines range for Erskine’s offense. While Erskine’s military service and her efforts to obtain her bachelor’s degree are commendable, they also show that Erskine has the ability to, succeed in life without turning to drug smuggling. Accordingly, we hold that Erskine’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable.

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