United States v. Evans , 403 F. App'x 818 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5135
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CORNELL SHERON EVANS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (2:09-cr-00059-JBF-TEM-1)
Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 3, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Keith Loren
Kimball, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt,
Research and Writing Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant.
Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Darryl J. Mitchell,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cornell Sheron Evans pled guilty to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). He
appeals the seventy-eight month sentence he received, arguing
that the district court clearly erred in applying an adjustment
for reckless endangerment during flight, U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 3C1.2 (2009). We affirm.
Evans stipulated that, when Virginia Beach police
attempted a traffic stop of his car, he continued to drive until
he lost control of his vehicle while making a turn on the rain-
wet road, then got out of the car and ran, throwing a loaded 9mm
pistol over a fence toward an interstate highway as he went. He
was then apprehended. At the sentencing hearing, the district
court received evidence that, during his brief flight, Evans
accelerated to a speed “well over the reckless limits” despite
the presence of other vehicles, “just barely made” one turn, and
later spun out of control. On these facts, we conclude that the
district court did not clearly err in finding that Evans
“recklesslessly created a substantial risk of death or serious
bodily injury to another person while fleeing from a law
enforcement officer.” USSG § 3C1.2. See, e.g., United
States v. Carter, 601 F.3d 252, 254-56 (4th Cir. 2010).
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the
district court. We dispense with oral argument because the
2
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3