
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Andres BALLARES, Maria Lugo, Vincente Franco, Defendants, Jose Herrera, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-0579-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 24, 2010.
    
      Robert M. Beecher, New Providence, NJ, for Appellant.
    Jo Ann M. Navickas, Robert L. Capers, Assistant United States Attorneys, of counsel, for Benton J. Campbell, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, RALPH K. WINTER and JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges.
   . SUMMARY ORDER

Jose Herrera appeals from the sentence imposed in a judgment of conviction entered February 12, 2009 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, J.). Herrera, member of a cross-border Mexican drug-trafficking operation, pled guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court sentenced him principally to 185 months’ imprisonment (the bottom of the Guidelines’ range), after considering, inter alia, the substantial impact of illegal drug importation from Mexico. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the case’s procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

We review the district court’s sentencing decision for “reasonableness,” applying “the familiar abuse-of-diseretion standard,” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); and we affirm. Herrera contends that the sentence is improperly predicated on adverse effects in Mexico. However, the district court predicated its sentencing decision in part on the domestic impact of cross-border drug trafficking, noting that “[transnational drug trafficking ... poses considerable danger to communities in the United States in which [the drugs] are distributed,” and that the corruption and violence associated with such trafficking are “related to the total danger within this and other jurisdictions.” The district court did not abuse its discretion by considering these facts. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2) (sentencing court should consider “the need for the sentence imposed ... to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; ... [and] to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct”). And they are alone sufficient to support the sentence imposed. Cf. United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 197 (2d Cir.2008) (in banc) (declining on harmless error grounds to consider alternative basis for sentence).

Finding no merit in Herrera’s remaining arguments, we accordingly AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.  