UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TONY GRANADO

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TONY GRANADO, Appellant

CLD-039

    Decided: November 18, 2016

Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and BARRY, Circuit Judges

OPINION*

Tony Granado is serving a 30-year sentence, imposed after he was convicted of various federal drug crimes. In August 2016, Granado filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Guidelines (made retroactive by Amendment 788), which lightened penalties for many drug crimes by altering offense levels on the U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 Drug Quantity Table. In particular, the amendment raised the amount of cocaine necessary to qualify for a base offense level of 38 from 150 kilograms to 450 kilograms. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) & Supp. to App. C, amends. 782, 788 (2014). Amendment 782 thus did not lower the offense level for defendants, like Granado, found responsible for 450-plus kilograms of cocaine. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 836 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2016).1 Accordingly, the District Court denied relief, determining that its prior drug-quantity finding rendered Granado's base offense level of 38 unaffected by Amendment 782. Granado timely appealed.2 We agree with the District Court's assessment, and will summarily affirm because the appeal presents no substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In anticipation of sentencing, the U.S. Probation Office prepared a PSR finding that Granado was responsible for over 1,500 kilograms of cocaine. The District Court accepted that finding, which resulted in a base offense level of 38. Three levels were added for Granado's role in the criminal conduct. An offense level of 41 coupled with Granado's Category III criminal history produced a sentencing range of 30 years to life.

2.   Granado's motion for a certificate of appealability is denied as unnecessary. See United States v. Taylor, 627 F.3d 674, 676 (7th Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The District Court's interpretation of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; denial of relief under § 3582(c)(2) is otherwise reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152, 154 (3d Cir. 2009).

PER CURIAM

FindLaw Career Center

    Select a Job Title


      Post a Job  |  Careers Home

    View More