Case ID: f-appx_578/html/0455-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Louis GRIEGO, Jr., also known as Big Lou, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-11410
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 20, 2014.
    James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mary Flowerree Walters, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Leigh Warren Davis, Bedford, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Louis Griego, Jr. appeals the 168-month sentence he received for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. He contends that the district court improperly calculated his guidelines range when it concluded that he was not entitled to an additional one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(b).

The Government acknowledges that it erred in withholding the reduction on the ground that Griego did not waive his right to appeal. See United States v. Villegas Palacios, 756 F.3d 325, 325 (5th Cir.2014). But we need not vacate the sentence, or resolve whether the Government’s other alleged bases for withholding the reduction were proper, because any error was harmless. See United States v. Richardson, 676 F.3d 491, 511-12 (5th Cir.2012); United States v. Bonilla, 524 F.3d 647, 656 (5th Cir.2008).

After considering the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the district court unequivocally stated that it would impose the 168-month sentence regardless whether the additional one-point reduction should apply. Indeed, the sentence imposed was within the guidelines range that would have applied if the one-level reduction had been granted. Accordingly, any error in calculating Griego’s guidelines range was harmless. See Richardson, 676 F.3d at 511.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. -