11-2562
United States v. Gallagher
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 19th day of April, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 Chief Judge,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 PETER W. HALL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11
12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
14 Appellee,
15
16 -v.- 11-2562
17
18 THOMAS E. GALLAGHER,
19 Defendant-Appellant,
20
21 SYED A. BABAR, AKA ALI, AKA ASAD,
22 DAVID AVIGDOR, NATHAN M. RUSSO, REHAN
23 QAMAR, MOHAMMAD SALEEM, RAB NAWAZ,
24 MORRIS I. OLMER, WENDY WERNER,
25 MARSHALL ASMAR,
26 Defendants.
27
28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
1
1 FOR APPELLANT: Marjorie M. Smith, Law Office of
2 Marjorie M. Smith, Piermont,
3 N.Y.
4
5 FOR APPELLEE: Susan L. Wines, Eric J. Glover,
6 Assistant United States
7 Attorneys, Sandra S. Glover,
8 Assistant United States Attorney
9 (of counsel), for David B. Fein,
10 United States Attorney for the
11 District of Connecticut, New
12 Haven, Conn.
13
14 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
15 Court for the District of Connecticut (Thompson, J.).
16
17 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
18 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
19 AFFIRMED.
20
21
22 Thomas E. Gallagher appeals from a judgment of
23 conviction for one count of making false statements to the
24 federal government in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. We
25 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts,
26 the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
27
28 Gallagher argues that his within-Guidelines 60-month
29 sentence--the statutory maximum--is unreasonable.
30 Reasonableness review “involves consideration not only of
31 the sentence itself, but also of the procedures employed in
32 arriving at the sentence. Reasonableness review does not
33 entail the substitution of our judgment for that of the
34 sentencing judge. Rather, the standard is akin to review
35 for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Fernandez, 443
36 F.3d 19, 26-27 (2d Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).
37
38 Gallagher was an essential party in a four-year-long
39 mortgage fraud conspiracy that resulted in $3 million in
40 losses to various lenders and the Federal Housing
41 Administration. He continued the scheme after receiving
42 warnings about his conduct, and he used his position of
43 influence in the community to vouch for the character of a
44 co-conspirator. As such, his sentence “can[] be located
2
1 within the range of permissible decisions.” United States
2 v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc)
3 (internal quotation marks omitted) (discussing review for
4 substantive reasonableness).
5
6 Gallagher’s contentions that the court did not
7 adequately justify his sentence are also unavailing. After
8 the court analyzed Gallagher’s arguments for a downward
9 departure and the government’s arguments for a within-
10 Guidelines sentence, the court concluded that the
11 “aggravating facts and circumstances here [do] not simply
12 outweigh the positives, . . . they overwhelm them.” See
13 also United States v. Jones, 531 F.3d 163, 174 (2d Cir.
14 2008) (“Sentencing is not, after all, a precise science.
15 Rarely, if ever, do the pertinent facts dictate one and only
16 one appropriate sentence.”) (citation omitted).
17
18
19 Finding no merit in Gallagher’s remaining arguments, we
20 hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
21
22
23 FOR THE COURT:
24 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
25
3