United States v. Heflin

Case: 22-20340 Document: 00516721146 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-20340
FILED
April 21, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Troy Fabian Heflin,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CR-269-1
______________________________
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Troy Fabian Heflin appeals the 41-month sentence imposed following
his guilty plea conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted
felon. Heflin argues that the district court erred in applying a two-level
reckless endangerment enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 because
his reckless conduct was not the result of attempting to flee from the
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20340 Document: 00516721146 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2023
No. 22-20340
consequences of the offense of conviction. He also argues that his conduct
was not reckless.
Heflin 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. See 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. 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),
Heflin 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, not because of the offense of conviction. He further asserts
that his conduct did not create a serious risk of bodily injury and that the
record is ambiguous as to whether he knew the police were pulling him over.
We have held that a substantial risk of serious injury is created when police
officers are led on a high-speed chase. United States v. Lee, 989 F.2d 180, 183
(5th Cir. 1993). Nothing in the record suggests that Heflin was unaware that
police were attempting to pull him over. See United States v. Gould, 529 F.3d
274, 276 (5th Cir. 2008). Further, since the chase took place while Heflin
was illegally in possession of a firearm, a sufficient nexus exists between his
flight and the offense of conviction. See Southerland, 405 F.3d at 268. The
district court’s conclusion that the § 3C1.2 enhancement was applicable
given the facts of this case was not clear error. See Torres-Magana, 938 F.3d
at 216. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2