
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Eddie RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-1143.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 15, 2015.
    Bruce R. Bryan, Syracuse, NY, for Appellant.
    Alina P. Reynolds, Marc H. Silverman, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Deirdre M. Daly, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, for Appel-lee.
    
      PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, DENNIS JACOB and PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption as shown above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant Eddie Rodriguez appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, /.), sentencing him principally to 77 months of imprisonment, after his guilty plea to conspiracy (1) to possess with intent to distribute and (2) to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Rodriguez argues that his 77-month sentence is substantively unreasonable. The precise sentence chosen by the district court, if within lawful bounds, is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). That highly deferential standard “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).

Given Rodriguez’s extensive criminal history, his trial counsel’s request for a 77-month sentence, the district court’s careful consideration of the relevant sentencing factors, and the 60-month mandatory minimum, the district court did not abuse its discretion. in imposing a sentence of 77 months.

* *

For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in Rodriguez’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.  