Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01646/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01646-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roberto Madrigal-Lopez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1646

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Roberto Madrigal-Lopez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 23, 2007

Filed: May 29, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Roberto Madrigal-Lopez appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed upon

his guilty plea to reentry after deportation for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2) and (b)(2). His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For reversal, counsel argues

that the district court erred in enhancing Madrigal-Lopez’s sentence for reckless

endangerment during flight under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2, and erred in denying MadrigalAppellate Case: 06-1646 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2007 Entry ID: 3313667
-2-

Lopez an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. We disagree

and affirm the sentence.

At sentencing, the government presented witnesses who described a high-speed

chase which reached speeds of over 100 miles per hour over 5-6 miles, involved

careening around curves on the highway, and ended in the vehicle leaving the

roadway and crashing in a field. The vehicle’s occupants--one of whom was

Madrigal-Lopez--were apprehended the next morning as they fled on foot through a

field. At sentencing, Madrigal-Lopez denied being the driver of the car, but one of the

deputies testified that Madrigal-Lopez had admitted during questioning that he was

in fact driving the car. The district court found the officer’s testimony credible and

assessed the 2-level reckless-endangerment enhancement. The court also found that

Madrigal-Lopez’s denial of relevant conduct--that he was the driver of the car that led

police on the high-speed chase--was frivolous, which justified the denial of an

acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.

We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding application

of an enhancement, and we review the factual findings for clear error. See United

States v. Goldman, 447 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir. 2006). The district court’s factual

finding that Madrigal-Lopez was the driver of the vehicle, based upon the court’s

finding that the deputy’s testimony regarding the admission was credible, was not

clear error. See United States v. Craft, 478 F.3d 899, 901 (8th Cir. 2007) (witness

credibility is issue for sentencing judge that is virtually unreviewable on appeal).

Given this factual finding and the other uncontested evidence relating to the highspeed chase, the district court did not err in applying the reckless-endangerment

enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 (if defendant recklessly creates substantial risk

of death or serious bodily injury to another person in course of fleeing from law

enforcement officer, increase by 2 levels; “reckless” is defined by commentary to

U.S.S.G. § 2A1.4); U.S.S.G. § 2A1.4, cmt. (n.1) (“reckless” means situation in which

defendant was aware of risk created by conduct and risk was of such nature and

Appellate Case: 06-1646 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2007 Entry ID: 3313667
-3-

degree that to disregard it constituted gross deviation from reasonable standard of

care); United States v. Harper, 466 F.3d 634, 649-50 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court did

not err in applying § 3C1.2 enhancement where defendant’s flight persisted over 3-4

miles of county roads at speeds in excess of 90 miles per hour and ended only after

defendant spun out of control), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1504 (2007). 

Second, the district court did not clearly err in denying an acceptance-ofresponsibility adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. (n.1(a)) (although defendant is

not required to admit relevant conduct beyond offense of conviction to qualify for

reduction, “a defendant who falsely denies, or frivolously contests, relevant conduct

that the court determines to be true has acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance

of responsibility”); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a) (defining relevant conduct); United States v.

Shepard, 462 F.3d 847, 873 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review), cert. denied, 127 S.

Ct. 838 (2006); United States v. Annis, 446 F.3d 852, 857-58 (8th Cir. 2006) (district

court did not clearly err in refusing § 3E1.1 adjustment where district court found that

defendant falsely denied or frivolously contested relevant conduct and had challenged

reliability of his previous statement), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Aug. 1, 2006) (No.

06-5731).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion

to withdraw, and we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1646 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/29/2007 Entry ID: 3313667