United States v. Granado ( 2022 )

Case: 21-50839 Document: 00516377567 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 30, 2022
No. 21-50839
consolidated with Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
No. 21-50861
Summary Calendar
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Joe Octavio Granado,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC Nos. 7:14-CR-247-1, 7:14-CR-153-1
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
In these consolidated appeals, Joe Octavio Granado contends that the
district court’s orders revoking his supervised release and imposing
consecutive 21-month terms of imprisonment are substantively
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-50839 Document: 00516377567 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2022
No. 21-50839
c/w No. 21-50861
unreasonable. He notes that the total sentence exceeds the length of the
original concurrent sentences, that his supervised release violations were
Grade C violations, and that the sentences imposed exceed the guidelines
range of three to nine months.
Because there was no objection, our review is for plain error. See
United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009). Granado “must
show an error that is clear or obvious and affects his substantial rights.” Id.
at 260. If he “makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct
the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.Granado asserts that the sentences are multiplicitous. He invokes
United States v. Willis, 563 F.3d 168, 160-70 (5th Cir. 2009). The holding in
Willis is limited to its material facts, which differ from those presented by the
instant case. See United States v. Fuentes, 906 F.3d 322, 326-27 (5th Cir.
2018). We have “routinely affirmed revocation sentences exceeding the
advisory range, even where the sentence equals the statutory maximum.”
United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). A district court
may impose consecutive terms of imprisonment when it revokes concurrent
terms of supervised release. See United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 929
(5th Cir. 2001); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). The district court’s orders are
AFFIRMED.
2