United States v. Sean Rodriguez ( 2020 )

Case: 19-20334 Document: 00515336553 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 19-20334 March 9, 2020
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
SEAN JOSEPH RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CR-137-1
Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Sean Joseph Rodriguez appeals his sentence for carjacking and using,
brandishing, and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of
violence. He challenges the district court’s application of a two-level upward
adjustment for reckless endangerment under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2, contending
that there was an insufficient nexus between his carjacking offense and his
flight from police three to four days later.
When error is preserved, as here, we review the district court’s
application of the Guidelines de novo and its fact findings for clear error.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 19-20334 Document: 00515336553 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/09/2020
No. 19-20334
United States v. Trujillo, 502 F.3d 353, 356 (5th Cir. 2007). We review a
district court’s determinations of what constitutes reckless endangerment for
the purposes of § 3C1.2 and what constitutes relevant conduct for purposes of
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a) for clear error. See United States v. Gould, 529 F.3d 274,
276 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Wall, 180 F.3d 641, 644 (5th Cir. 1999).
Thus, we will uphold the district court’s application of the adjustment if it is
plausible in light of the record as a whole. See Gould, 529 F.3d at 276.
We have explained that, in accordance with the relevant conduct
guideline provision at § 1B1.3(a), the alleged reckless endangerment for
purposes of § 3C1.2 must occur “‘during the commission of the offense of
conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to
avoid detection or responsibility for that offense.’” United States v.
Southerland, 405 F.3d 263, 268 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting § 1B1.3(a)(1)
(emphasis added)). In considering whether the defendant fled to avoid
detection or responsibility for the offenses of conviction, we “look primarily to
any evidence of the defendant’s state of mind while fleeing.” Id. We may also
consider the geographic and temporal proximity of the flight to the offense of
conviction. Id. at 269.
Here, Rodriguez fled from police in the vehicle he stole during the
carjacking, and there was no evidence establishing any other reason for his
flight. The district court’s conclusion that Rodriguez recklessly fled from police
in order to avoid detection or responsibility for his carjacking offense was
plausible in light of the record as a whole. See Gould, 529 F.3d at 276; Wall,
180 F.3d at 644.
AFFIRMED.
2