
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. William G. ROBERTSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-1972-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 13, 2013.
    Kevin J. Doyle, Gregory L. Waples, Assistant United States Attorneys for Tris-tram J. Coffin, United States Attorney for the District of Vermont, Burlington, VT, for Appellee.
    Bruce R. Bryan, Bryan Law Firm, Syracuse, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, B.D. PARKER, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

On November 2, 2011, defendant-appellant William George Robertson (“Robertson” or “defendant”) pleaded guilty to a single count of failure to register as a sex offender in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SOR-NA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2250. The District Court subsequently sentenced defendant to 27 months’ imprisonment and five years of supervised release. On appeal, Robertson challenges his sentence as substantively unreasonable.

We review all sentences using an abuse-of-discretion standard. See United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir.2008) (en banc). Our review typically consists of a two-step process. First we “must [] ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence — including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). “[W]e then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, reversing only when the trial court’s sentence ‘cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.’ ” United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174, 179 (2d Cir.2010) (quoting Cavera, 550 F.3d at 189).

Having reviewed the record, we have considered all of defendant’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Defendant’s sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment is within the relevant Guidelines range and is otherwise substantively reasonable, substantially for the reasons given by the District Court at the defendant’s sentencing hearing, of April 18, 2012. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the April 19, 2012 judgment of conviction of the District Court. 
      
      . We note that, among other considerations, the District Court found that the defendant had not undergone treatment as a sex offender during a lengthy prior term of incarceration, despite having multiple opportunities to do so, and recommended that Robertson undergo treatment as part of his 27-month sentence.
     