
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Juan Antonio GONZALEZ, aka Deleon Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-4626-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 20, 2012.
    David A. Lewis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., Appeals Bureau, New York, NY, for Appellant.
    Tyler J. Smith, Assistant U.S. Attorney (Jo Ann M. Navickas, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, PETER W. HALL, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Antonio Gonzalez appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Garaufis, /.), sentencing him to 33 months’ imprisonment for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), to run consecutively to the 36-month state prison term Appellant is currently serving. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

Appellant contends that the district court’s decision to run his federal sentence consecutively to his state sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable.

We review a district court’s decision to run a federal sentence consecutively to an undischarged state sentence for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Livorsi, 180 F.3d 76, 82 (2d Cir.1999). Gonzalez does not argue that the district court improperly calculated the appropriate Guidelines range or that the state and federal sentences were the result of the same criminal conduct. Rather, Gonzalez’s only argument on appeal is that the district court’s conclusion that the sentence should run consecutively was unreasonable because it was not necessary to provide adequate deterrence.

The extent of Gonzalez’s criminal history supports the district court’s decision. The district court also thoroughly considered Gonzalez’s argument that his family ties in Panama counseled against imposing consecutive sentences to achieve adequate deterrence. The district court rejected this argument and we cannot say that doing so was an abuse of discretion. That Gonzalez will ultimately serve more time than he would have if he had been sentenced on his state conviction and the illegal entry conviction simultaneously, in federal court, does not make the district court’s decision to run his federal sentence consecutively to his state sentence an abuse of discretion.

We have reviewed Gonzalez’s other arguments and find them without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  