
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gregory GRIFFIN, AKA Meeshack, Defendant-Appellant.
    
    16-2630
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 12, 2017
    FOR APPELLANT: Melissa A. Tuohey, for Lisa A. Peebles, Federal Public Defender for the Northern District of New York.
    FOR APPELLEE: Steven D. Clymer, for Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges, GEORGE B. DANIELS, District Judge.
    
      
      The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the ' official caption to conform to the caption above.
    
    
      
       Judge George B. Daniels, United States Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Gregory Griffin appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Mordue, J.) imposing, in relevant part, a sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment after his plea to violations of his conditions of supervised release. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review. We affirm because the district court’s within-Guidelines sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.

Griffin argues that the district court failed to adequately explain the reasons for its sentence. He did not preserve this procedural objection, and so we review it for plain error. United States v. Aldeen, 792 F.3d 247, 263 (2d Cir. 2015), as amended (July 22, 2015). Further, when imposing a within-Guidelines sentence for violation of supervised release, a district court’s compliance with the sentencing explanation requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) “can be minimal.” United States v. Cassesse, 685 F.3d 186, 192 (2d Cir. 2012), as amended (July 25, 2012). While the district court’s explanation was indeed minimal, Griffin failed to show (as he was required to do) that any lack of explanation “prejudicially affected his substantial rights,” United States v. Cook, 722 F.3d 477, 481 (2d Cir. 2013).

As to Griffin’s substantive challenge to his 27-month sentence, the within-Guidelines sentence was not “so shockingly high ... or otherwise unsupportable as a matter of law that allowing [it] to stand would damage the administration of justice.” Aldeen, 792 F.3d at 255 (internal quotation marks omitted). It was therefore substantively reasonable.

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