Case ID: f-appx_394/html/0058-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rolando RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-41251.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 30, 2010.
    
      James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Defendant-Appellant Rolando Rodriguez pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana and was sentenced to 136 months of imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and $7,197.04 in restitution.

Rodriguez argues that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence by six levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(c)(l) because the evidence in the record does not establish an intentional aggravated assault on police, but rather demonstrates at best a negligent loss of control of his vehicle. However, Rodriguez’s conduct, which involved threatening moves toward police, amounted to more than mere recklessness, and thus the district court’s application of the § 3A1.2(c)(l) enhancement was plausible in light of the record as a whole. See United States v. Anderson, 559 F.3d 348, 356-57 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2814, 174 L.Ed.2d 308 (2009); United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir.2006); United States v. Gillyard, 261 F.3d 506, 510 (5th Cir.2001). Accordingly, Rodriguez has not shown that the district court committed clear error. See Caldwell, 448 F.3d at 290.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.