United States v. Srenevasan

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 1, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-50611
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VISHNU K. SRENEVASAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:05-CR-426
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Having pleaded guilty to attempted bank robbery by
extortion, Vishnu K. Srenevasan appeals his 92-month sentence.
Srenevasan does not dispute that an upward departure from the
advisory Sentencing Guidelines was warranted in his case, but
he argues that the extent of the departure was unreasonable.
Srenevasan contends that there is no evidence that his offense
caused greater emotional trauma than is typical in an attempted
robbery or extortion; that the district court’s finding that the
victim suffered psychological injury is not supported by expert

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-50611
-2-
evidence; and that the district court failed to consider
Srenevasan’s lack of criminal history and the likelihood that he
will be deported to India after serving his sentence.
As Srenevasan did not object to the lack of expert testimony
concerning the victim’s psychological state, we review this
argument for plain error and find none. See United States v.
Izaguirre-Losoya, 219 F.3d 437, 441 (5th Cir. 2000).
In addition to departing upward pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 2B3.2, comment. (n.8) based on Srenevasan’s threats to the
victim’s family, the district court concluded that an upward
departure was necessary based on the nature and circumstances of
the offense; to reflect the seriousness of the offense; to
provide just punishment and adequate deterrence; and to protect
the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In light of the facts of
this case and the foregoing sentencing factors, we conclude that
the upward departure was within the discretion of the district
court and that Srenevasan’s sentence was not unreasonable.
United States v. Saldana, 427 F.3d 298, 310 (5th Cir. 2005),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1097 (2006); United States v. Smith,
440 F.3d 704, 706 (5th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --