United States v. Medina , 263 F. App'x 323 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4377
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PEDRO B. MEDINA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:06-cr-00241-D)
Submitted: December 17, 2007 Decided: January 30, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pedro Banegas Medina pled guilty to one count of illegal
reentry of an alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (2000). At
sentencing, the district court increased Medina’s offense level
under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3A1.2(c)(1) (2006) and
under § 3C1.2. Medina challenges both enhancements. Finding no
error, we affirm.
When reviewing the district court’s application of the
Sentencing Guidelines, we review findings of fact for clear error
and questions of law de novo. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d
449, 456 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). Because
Medina withdrew his objection to the enhancement under USSG
§ 3C1.2, we review that claim for plain error. United States v.
Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-37 (1993).
We find no error with the application of either
enhancement. Clearly, the six-level increase under USSG
§ 3A1.2(c)(1) was proper as Medina attempted to run the police
officer over with his car. The two-level increase under USSG
§ 3C1.2 was proper because Medina drove his car 640 feet after
being told to turn it off, jumped over a curb and into a public
parking lot.
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -