
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jerome BROWN, also known as Jamel Brown, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-4663-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 26, 2012.
    David A. Lewis, Federal Defenders of New York, New York, NY, for Appellant.
    Daniel C. Richenthal, Assistant United States Attorney (Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York; Brent S. Wible, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), New York, NY, for Appellee.
    Present: PIERRE N. LEVAL, ROSEMARY S. POOLER and REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Jerome Brown appeals the sentence of 72 months’ imprisonment imposed by the district court on October 28, 2011. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

“Reasonableness review is akin to review for abuse of discretion, under which we consider whether the sentencing judge exceeded the bounds of allowable discretion, committed an error of law in the course of exercising discretion, or made a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” United States v. Williams, 475 F.3d 468, 474 (2d Cir.2007) (citation and alterations omitted). “Whether the District Court correctly interpreted U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 is a question of law, which we review de novo.” United States v. Cuello, 357 F.3d 162, 164 (2d Cir.2004).

The district court correctly considered the factors identified in Cuello to determine that Brown’s previous New York state youthful offender adjudication counted as a previous conviction for a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1. This Court has addressed the status of New York state youthful offender adjudications as previous convictions in many contexts, see, e.g., United States v. Pereira, 465 F.3d 515 (2d Cir.2006); United States v. Jones, 415 F.3d 256 (2d Cir.2005); United States v. Driskell, 277 F.3d 150 (2d Cir.2002); United States v. Matthews, 205 F.3d 544 (2d Cir.2000), and we do not disturb those decisions here. As the district court identified the proper Guidelines range and sentenced Brown accordingly, we cannot conclude that the sentence in this case was either proeedurally or substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Eberhard, 525 F.3d 175, 179 (2d Cir.2008) (“[I]n the overwhelming majority of cases, a Guidelines sentence will fall comfortably within the broad range of sentences that would be reasonable in the particular circumstances.” (citation omitted)).

We find Brown’s remaining arguments to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.  