SUMMARY ORDER

Donald Torriero appeals from an August 7, 2013 judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Hurd, J.). The district court sentenced Torriero principally to a term of imprisonment of thirty-six months after Torriero pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and two counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

Torriero contends that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. We disagree. This sentence is not “shockingly high, shockingly low, or otherwise unsupportable as a matter of law.” United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108, 123 (2d Cir. 2009). The advisory range recommended by the United States Sentencing Guidelines for his crime was sixty-three to seventy-eight months’ imprisonment, but the district court sentenced him to just thirty-six months’ imprisonment after considering the same factors that Torriero raises in his appeal.

Torriero further argues that the district court’s sentence was procedurally unreasonable because it applied section 2B1.1 of *64 the Guidelines rather than section 2Q1.2 in calculating his offense level. We disagree. The district court was required by Part D of Chapter 3 of the Guidelines to group Torriero’s three counts and then apply the guideline that resulted in the highest offense level. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3D1.3. In this case, the fraud-related guideline of section 2B1.1 resulted in a higher offense level than the environmental crimes-related guideline of section 2Q1.2. The cross-reference of section 2Bl.l(c)(3) on which Torriero relies applies “only if the conduct alleged in the count of the indictment of which the defendant is convicted establishes the elements of another offense.” United States v. Genao, 343 F.3d 578, 583 (2d Cir. 2003). Because Torriero’s offense conduct in the wire-fraud counts of the indictment did not establish an environmental crime, the district court did not err in applying section 2B1.1.

We have considered Torriero’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.