
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Andre GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-149-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 13, 2012.
    Yuanchung Lee, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., Appeals Bureau, New York, NY, for Appellant.
    Matthew L. Schwartz (Andrew L. Fish, on the brief) for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, RALPH K. WINTER and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Andre Green challenges his sentence for failing to register as a sex offender, arguing that the district court erred in denying him a three-level reduction under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2A3.5(b)(2)(B). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

A district court “commits procedural error where it fails to calculate the Guidelines range (unless omission of the calculation is justified), makes a mistake in its Guidelines calculation, ... treats the Guidelines as mandatory!,] • • • does not consider the § 3553(a) factors, or rests its sentence on a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 190 (2d Cir.2008) (internal citations omitted). We review a district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its related findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Cain, 671 F.3d 271, 301 (2d Cir.2012).

The Guidelines provide for a three-level reduction if the defendant “voluntarily ... (B) attempted to register but was prevented from registering by uncontrollable circumstances and the defendant did not contribute to the creation of those circumstances.” U.S.S.G. § 2A3.5(b)(2). Green argues that the district court erroneously added a requirement that, to be entitled to the reduction, he must have “complied [with the statute] as soon as such circumstances ceased to exist.” This language derives from an affirmative defense outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 2250(b) and is not a prerequisite to receiving a Guidelines reduction.

But the district court did not rest its decision on Green’s inability to make out an affirmative defense under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(b). Instead, the court faithfully adhered to the (less stringent) requirements set forth in § 2A3.5(b)(2)(B) and concluded that Green did not merit such a reduction. The court found that while the uncontrollable circumstances claimed by Green may have prevented him from registering as a sex offender immediately upon entering New York, they did not impede his efforts throughout the subsequent year that he remained in the state before being arrested for this offense. This decision is well supported.

Finding no merit in Green’s remaining arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.  