USA v. Granado-Velasquez, No. 06-10685 (5th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 17, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-10685 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BERNARDO GRANADO-VELASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:06-CR-2-ALL -------------------Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Bernardo Granado-Velasquez (Granado) appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction of illegally reentering the United States after having been removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). The district court sentenced Granado to 120 months in prison, which was well above the 46-to57-month advisory guidelines imprisonment range calculated by the Probation Office in Granado s Presentence Report. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 06-10685 -2Granado contends that the district court (1) violated FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(h) and Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129 (1991), by failing to notify the parties that it was considering a sua sponte upward departure from the guidelines range and (2) failed to adhere to the methodology prescribed in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 for calculating the extent of such a departure. Granado s sentence was imposed after the issuance of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and the district court deemed the above-the-guidelines-range sentence a variance rather than a departure. Granado s arguments are foreclosed by United States v. Mejia-Huerta, WL 610973 at **5-7 F.3d , No. 05-11391, 2007 (5th Cir. Feb. 28, 2007). The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.