
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Thomas E. GALLAGHER, Defendant-Appellant, Syed A. Babar, Aka Ali, Aka Asad, David Avigdor, Nathan M. Russo, Rehan Qamar, Mohammad Saleem, Rab Nawaz, Morris I. Olmer, Wendy Werner, Marshall Asmar, Defendants.
    No. 11-2562.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 19, 2012.
    
      Marjorie M. Smith, Law Office of Marjorie M. Smith, Piermont, N.Y., for Appellant.
    Susan L. Wines, Eric J. Glover, Assistant United States Attorneys, Sandra S. Glover, Assistant United States Attorney (of counsel), for David B. Fein, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, CT, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, B.D. PARKER and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Thomas E. Gallagher appeals from a judgment of conviction for one count of making false statements to the federal government in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Gallagher argues that his within-Guidelines 60-month sentence — the statutory maximum — is unreasonable. Reasonableness review “involves consideration not only of the sentence itself, but also of the procedures employed in arriving at the sentence. Reasonableness review does not entail the substitution of our judgment for that of the sentencing judge. Rather, the standard is akin to review for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.Sd 19, 26-27 (2d Cir.2006) (citations omitted).

Gallagher was an essential party in a four-year-long mortgage fraud conspiracy that resulted in $3 million in losses to various lenders and the Federal Housing Administration. He continued the scheme after receiving warnings about his conduct, and he used his position of influence in the community to vouch for the character of a co-conspirator. As such, his sentence “can[ ] 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 omitted) (discussing review for substantive reasonableness).

Gallagher’s contentions that the court did not adequately justify his sentence are also unavailing. After the court analyzed Gallagher’s arguments for a downward departure and the government’s arguments for a within-Guidelines sentence, the court concluded that the “aggravating facts and circumstances here [do] not simply outweigh the positives, ... they overwhelm them.” See also United States v. Jones, 531 F.3d 163, 174 (2d Cir.2008) (“Sentencing is not, after all, a precise science. Rarely, if ever, do the pertinent facts dictate one and only one appropriate sentence.”) (citation omitted).

Finding no merit in Gallagher’s remaining arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.  