UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

R U L I N G S BY SUM M A R Y OR D E R DO N O T HAV E PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO

S U M M A R Y O R D E R S FIL E D AF T E R JAN U A R Y 1, 200 7 , IS PE R M I T T E D A N D IS GO V E R N E D BY TH I S

C O U R T ' S LOCAL RULE 0.23 AND FEDERAL RULE O F APPELLATE PRO C E D U R E 32.1. IN A BRIEF

O R OT H E R P A P E R IN W H I C H A LITIG A N T C I T E S A SU M M A R Y O R D E R , IN EA C H PA R A G R A P H IN

W H I C H A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL

A P PE N D I X OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION: "(SUMMARY ORDER)." UNLESS THE

S U M M A R Y OR D E R IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DA T A B A S E W H I C H IS PUBLICLY

A C C E S SI B LE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT

H T T P : / /W W W . C A 2 . U S C O U R T S . G O V /

A N D SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE

S U M M A R Y ORDER IS CITED. IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF

T H E ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT

D A T A B A S E AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.

At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York,

on the 21st day of March, two thousand and seven.

PRESENT:

HON . GUIDO CALABRESI,

HON. RICHARD C. WESLEY,

Circuit Judges,

HON . WILLIAM K. SESSIONS III, District Judge.* United States of America, Appellee, -v.- No. 06-0388-cr Joseph Doucet, Defendant-Appellant, David Fusco, Angela Fusco, Clinton Kenfield, Judson Creasy, Adrian Jessop, Michael J.

Luffman, Defendants.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: James E. Long, Albany, NY, on submission FOR APPELLEE: Elizabeth S. Riker, Assistant United States Attorney (Richard S. Hartunian, Assistant United States At to rney, on the brief) for Glenn T. Suddaby, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, NY UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this appeal from a judgment entered in the United St ates District Court for the Northern District of New York (Sharpe, J.), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Defendant-appellant Joseph Doucet was convicted, pursuant to a guilty plea, of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute marijuana and more than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and § 846. The district court sentenced Doucet principally to 30 months' imprisonment. Doucet challenges his sentence on two grounds. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

First, Doucet argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court erred when it determined that, under United States Sentencing Guideline § 3B1.2, he was eligible on the basis of his role in the offense for a 2-level reduction but not for a 3- or 4-level adjustment.

This contention is unavailing. Given the extent of the defendant's involvement in the drug conspiracy of which he was convicted, which included his introducing the drug dealer to the drug supplier and allowing them to transact their business at his home on three occasions, we cannot say that the district court erred when it found Doucet ineligible for the 3- or 4-level reduction in total offense level. See United States v. Gaston, 68 F.3d 1466, 1467-68 (2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam); see also United States v. Yu, 285 F.3d 192, 200 (2d Cir. 2002). Accordingly, the district court's calculation of the applicable Guidelines range did not involve any procedural errors that rendered the sentence unreasonable. See United States v. Selioutsky, 409 F.3d 114, 118 (2d Cir. 2005).

Second, Doucet asserts that his sentence is unreasonably long given his lack of a prior criminal history and his family circumstances. This argument is also unpersuasive. There is nothing in the record that suggests that the ultimate sentence was not reasonable under the circumstances presented. The relevant Guidelines range took into account the defendant's minimal prior criminal history. As to the defendant's family situation, although it is certainly sympathetic, it is not out of the ordinary for the imprisonment of one parent in a two-parent, two income household to impose financial and caretaking burdens on the other parent. It was therefore not unreasonable for the district court to decline to impose a non-Guidelines sentence on the basis of Doucet's family circumstances. Cf. United States v. Smith, 331 F.3d 292, 294 (2d Cir. 2003); United States v. Madrigal, 331 F.3d 258, 260 (2d Cir. 2003) (per curiam).

The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT: Thomas Asreen, Acting Clerk By:

* The Honorable William K. Sessions III, United States District Court Judge for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.