United States v. Bronson Gainey , 458 F. App'x 273 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4467
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BRONSON JERMAINE GAINEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00336-WO-1)
Submitted: December 15, 2011 Decided: December 19, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ames C. Chamberlin, LAW OFFICES OF AMES C. CHAMBERLIN,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United
States Attorney, Paul A. Weinman, Assistant United States
Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bronson Jermaine Gainey pled guilty to possession of a
stolen firearm and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. On
appeal, he challenges the district court’s decision at
sentencing to apply a two-level enhancement for recklessly
creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death
while being pursued by police pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 3C1.2 (2010). Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews the district court’s factual
findings regarding a sentencing enhancement for clear error and
the legal interpretations of the Guidelines de novo. United
States v. Carter, 601 F.3d 252, 254 (4th Cir. 2010). An
individual’s acts are considered “reckless” when he “was aware
of the risk created by his conduct and the risk was of such a
nature and degree that to disregard that risk constituted a
gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable
person would exercise in such a situation.” USSG §§ 2A1.4 cmt.
n.1, 3C1.2 cmt. n.2.
Here, after an officer attempted to detain Gainey
while investigating a shots fired call, Gainey instructed the
driver of a car to “go, go, go,” while the officer was “at least
partly in the car.” In addition, there was a firearm near
Gainey and a pit bull and three other individuals in the car, as
well as at least one other suspect on the street approaching the
2
car. We conclude that Gainey’s conduct during the pursuit was
sufficient to support the two-level increase.
Accordingly, we affirm Gainey’s sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3