
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John HAMILTON, Appellant.
    
    Nos. 11-2492 (L), 11-3186(con).
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Sept. 25, 2014.
    
      Bobbi C. Sternheim, New York, N.Y, for Appellant.
    Michael D. Maimin, Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (Preet Bharara, United States Attorney; Justin Anderson, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), New York, N.Y., for Appellee.
    Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges and VALERIE CAPRONI, District Judge.
    
      
      . The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption as above.
    
    
      
      . Docket No. 11-2492 was closed by order filed October 22, 2012.
    
    
      
      . The Honorable Valerie Caproni, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

John Hamilton appeals from the June 23, 2011 judgment of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (McMahon, J.) sentencing him principally to 60 months’ imprisonment following his guilty plea to the offense of conspiracy to distribute, and possession with the intent to distribute, five grams or more of crack in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

At his sentencing, Hamilton alloeuted that he “agreed with others to sell five grams or more of crack cocaine in New-burgh from 2007 and on.” In Hamilton’s plea agreement, however, the parties stipulated that Hamilton’s base offense level was 26, “[bjecause the offense involved at least 28 grams but less than 112 grams of cocaine base [crack].” The district court adopted the description of Hamilton’s offense and conduct set forth in the presen-tence report (“PSR”). The PSR states Hamilton’s conduct involved “at least 28 grams, but less than 112 grams of cocaine base.” PSR ¶44. Based on the drug amount stipulated to in the plea agreement, Hamilton was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 60 months’ imprisonment.

Hamilton primarily argues that the amount he alloeuted to is the controlling admission for FSA purposes, not the amount he stipulated to in his plea agreement. We disagree, as the district court’s adoption of the PSR’s description of Hamilton’s offense and conduct is a finding as to drug quantity. Moreover, Hamilton did not actively contest the quantity of crack cocaine involved in his offense in the same way that the defendant did in United States v. Culbertson, 670 F.3d 183, 190-91 (2d Cir.2012). We acknowledge the district court’s frustration with imposing the mandatory minimum sentence in this case, but agree with its assessment that the existence of the mandatory minimum rendered the Section 3553(a) factors “largely irrelevant.” Appendix at 108.

We have considered the remainder of Hamilton’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the sentence of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  