United States v. Peters ( 2023 )

Case: 22-10149 Document: 00516612587 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10149
Summary Calendar FILED
January 17, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Kyrin Peters,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CR-77-1
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Kyrin Peters appeals the 41-month sentence imposed following his
guilty plea conviction for unlawful receipt of a firearm while under
indictment. Peters argues that the district court erred in applying a two-level
reckless endangerment enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 because
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-10149 Document: 00516612587 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/17/2023
No. 22-10149
his reckless conduct was not the result of attempting to flee from the
consequences of the offense of conviction. The Government’s unopposed
motion to correct its brief is GRANTED.
Peters preserved his challenge to the reckless endangerment
enhancement in the district court; accordingly, we review the district court’s
interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear
error. United States v. Deckert, 993 F.3d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 2021). There is
no clear error when the district court’s findings are plausible in light of the
entire record. See United States v. Torres-Magana, 938 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir.
2019).
Citing United States v. Southerland, 405 F.3d 263, 268 (5th Cir. 2005),
Peters argues that the § 3C1.2 enhancement was not applicable because the
evidence reveals that he fled from law enforcement officials because he knew
he had warrants and also possessed marijuana, not because of the offense of
conviction. He further asserts that there was an unknown temporal nexus
between the flight and the receipt of the firearm and that he likely would have
thought he would have been charged with unlawful carrying of a weapon, not
receipt.
The district court is permitted to choose between “two permissible
views of the evidence.” Torres-Magana, 938 F.3d at 216 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). The evidence reveals that it is just as likely that
Peters fled to avoid detection of the firearm he had in the car as to avoid being
arrested for warrants or possession of a small amount of marijuana,
particularly in light of the fact that he admitted to receiving the firearm on or
about the same day of the chase and that he knew he was under indictment.
The district court’s conclusion that the § 3C1.2 enhancement was applicable
given the facts of this case was not clear error. See id. Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2