
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John REESE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-2899.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 9, 2014.
    
      Lisa A. Peebles (James P. Egan, on the brief), Federal Public Defender, Syracuse, New York, on submission, for Appellant.
    Paul D. Silver (Lisa M. Fletcher, on the brief), for Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Albany, New York, on submission, for Appellees.
    Present: DENNIS JACOBS, JOSÉ A. CABRANES and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

John Reese appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Hurd, /.), revoking Reese’s supervised release and sentencing him to 9 months’ imprisonment, followed by a life term of supervised release. Reese challenges the imposition of lifetime supervised release on the grounds that the court (1) failed to adequately explain the reason for the sentence and (2) abused its discretion. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

1. Reese’s claim that the district court did not adequately explain the reasons for his sentence, raised for the first time on appeal, is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Alvarado, 720 F.3d 153, 157 (2d Cir.2013).

The district court, “at the time of sentencing, shall state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). “Where, as here, the sentence concerns a violation of supervised release and the ultimate sentence is within the recommended range, compliance with the statutory requirements can be minimal.” United States v. Cassesse, 685 F.3d 186, 192 (2d Cir.2012). Upon review of the record, the district court sufficiently explained that the violation occurred less than one year after Reese’s release from prison, Reese had “lied on a number of occasions,” and Reese “refus[ed] to accept the situation.” A-122.

2. Reese argues that the district court abused its discretion in imposing supervised release for life because this term far exceeded the statutory maximum prison term authorized for the underlying offense.

We review a sentence imposed for violating a condition of supervised release under “the same standard as for sentencing generally: whether the sentence imposed is reasonable.” United States v. McNeil, 415 F.3d 273, 277 (2d Cir.2005). We “set aside a district court’s substantive determination only in exceptional cases where the trial court’s decision cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir.2008) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted).

A life term of supervised release has been found reasonable where, as here, such a term was “recommended under the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v. Hayes, 445 F.3d 536, 537 (2d Cir.2006) (noting that such a recommendation supports, but does not necessitate, a determination of reasonableness). Moreover, “[district courts are permitted ... to hedge against a relatively lenient term of imprisonment by imposing a longer term of supervised release.” United States v. Leon, 663 F.3d 552, 556 (2d Cir.2011), cert denied, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1777, 182 L.Ed.2d 555 (2012) (quotation marks and original brackets omitted). Here, Judge Hurd considered imposing the statutory maximum prison term of two years because Reese had violated the terms of his supervised release in his first year out of prison, Reese displayed a defiant attitude while under supervision, and Reese had been untruthful about his conduct. However, after considering Reese’s mitigating circumstances, the district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of nine months’ imprisonment followed by a life term of supervised release. This sentence was reasonable and within the court’s discretion.

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