United States v. Wyllie , 193 F. App'x 197 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TERRANCE TREMAINE WYLLIE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-05-63)
Submitted: July 24, 2006 Decided: August 2, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Kearns
Davis, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Terrance Tremaine Wyllie pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to one count of distribution of cocaine base and one
count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B) (2000).
On appeal, Wyllie claims that the district court erred by imposing
a six-level increase to his base offense level pursuant to U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3A1.2(c) (2004). After thoroughly
reviewing the record, we affirm.
A district court’s factual determinations regarding
application of the Sentencing Guidelines are reviewed for clear
error, and its legal interpretations of the Guidelines are reviewed
de novo. United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). Under USSG § 3A1.2(c)(1), if
“in a manner creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury,
the defendant[,] . . . knowing or having reasonable cause to
believe that a person was a law enforcement officer, assaulted such
officer during the course of the offense or immediate flight
therefrom,” the offense level is increased by six levels. We find
that the district court did not err in concluding that Wyllie
created a substantial risk of serious injury to a law enforcement
officer when he used his vehicle to strike a police vehicle
occupied by two officers in his attempt to evade apprehension. See
- 2 -
generally United States v. Ashley, 141 F.3d 63, 68-69 (2d Cir.
1998).
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and 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 -