P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 11002 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. RAFAEL BOCANEGRA- RODRI GUEZ D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he N or t her n D i st r i c tof Texas U S D C N o . 5 :08 -C R -3 1 -1
B ef ore JO L L Y , B E N AV ID E S , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * R afaelB ocan egra- R odri gu ez ( B ocan egra) a pp eal s f ol l ow i n g h i s gui l t y pl ea convic t i on f

or t ran sport i n g i l l egal al i en s an d ai di n g an d abetti n g . H e argu es t h at t h e di st ri ctcourtrevers ibl y erred w h en i t adj u st ed hi s of fen se l evelun der U
. S. S. G
. § 3 C1. 2 and§ 2 L1. 1(b) ( 6) b e c aus e b o t h a dj us t m e nt s w e r e b as e d o n t he
s am e uni nt e rrupted c o ur s e o f c o nduc t . H e a r gue s t hatt he r i s k c aus e d b y t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 24, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 11002

2 cond i t i on s i n the van a n d t h at posed by the m an n er i n w h i ch the van w as driven du ri n g f l i gh tcann otbe eval u ated w i t h ou tref erence t o one an ot h er. W e rev i ew the distri ct co u rt’ s a p p l i ca ti on o f th e G u i d eli n es d e n ov o a n d i ts fin d in g s o f fa c t fo rcle a re r r o r . Un i t ed S t ate s v. C uyler , 2 9 8 F
. 3 d3 8 7 , 38 9 ( 5 th C i r. 200 2) . A d i st ri ctcourt ’ s r eason able i n ferences f rom t h e fact s al so are r e v ie w e d fo rc le a re r r o r . Uni t e d St at e s v . D eJe s us - O j e da , 51 5 F
. 3 d43 4 , 44 2 ( 5 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). D ou bl e coun t i n g i s p ro h ib ited u n d e r th e S e n te n cin gG u id e li n e s o n ly w h ere th e g u id e lin e a t is s u e e x p r e s s l y p r o h ib its it. Se eUni t e d St at e s v . G ay t an , 74 F
. 3 d 54 5 , 56 0 ( 5 th C ir . 19 9 6 ). In a d d ress i n g w h eth er m u l ti p l e a dj u stm en ts c ons t i t ut e i m per m i ss ibl e do ubl e c ount i ng, the f oc us shoul d be “ on the t em por al ands pa t i aldi s t i n c t ive ne s s o rs e pa r at e ne s s o f t he a c t s ” i n o r de rt o de t e r m i ne w h eth er th e con d u ct i n vo lve s “m ore tha n on e cu l p a b l e a ct. ” Uni t e d St at e s v. G i l l yard , 2 6 1 F .3d 5 0 6 , 5 1 1 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). Adefen da n tre ce ives an adj u st m en tun der § 2L 1. 1(b) ( 6) i f t h e of fen se c o n d u ct reck l ess l y crea tes a ri sk of seriou s b od i l y i nj u ry to a n oth er p e r s o n . A de fe nda ntr e c e ive s a n § 3 C1. 2 adj u st m e nti f hi s f l i ghtf r o m a l aw enf

o r c e m e nt
r e c kl e s s l y c r e at e s a s e r i o us r i s k o f b o di l y i nj ur y t o a no t he rpe r s o n. I f t he cond u ctj u st i f

yi n g t h e § 2L 1. 1(b) ( 6) adj u st m en ti s s ol el y rel ated t o f l eei n g f rom la w e n fo r c e m e n t, § 3 C 1 .2 s h o u ldn o t a p p ly
. S ee § 2L 1. 1, com m en t . (n . 5)
. Th u s, w h ere the § 2L 1
. 1 (b)( 6 ) a dju s tm e n t i s ba sed on con d u ct no t sol ely related to f l i ght , t he di st r i c tc our ti s notpr ec l uded f r om appl yi ng § 3C 1. 2. T h e overcr ow ded condit i on s i n t h e van posed a d an ger of a substan t i alri sk of ser i ou s i nj u ry to the al i en s an d t o the u n secured i n fan t , even i n t h e even tof
an ordi n ary t raf

f i c acc i den tnot c au sed by B o ca n egra’ s s u bsequ en trec kles s fli g h t. T h u s, t h e ri sk cau sed by the overcrow di n g w as di st i n ctf rom t h e ri sk posed by B ocan egra’ s reckl ess dri vi n g du ri n g f l i gh t . F u rt h erm ore, i n add i t i on t o e n da n geri n g h i s passeng ers, B ocan egra’ s r eckl ess drivi n g creat ed a ri sk ofN o. 08- 11002

Boc ane gra’s replycontends that this point was never made before the district court. 1 However , th e P S R Ad de n du m s t at e s : “As i d e f ro m e n d an gerin g th e p a s s e n ger s in an overcrowded van, the defen dant fled from law enforcement, creating a substantial ris kof seriou s b odilyin

j uryor de ath .” 3 da n ger t o peop l e besi des t h e van passen gers. B eca u se B ocan egra’ s c on du ct 1 in v o lv e d “m o r e th a n o n e cu lp a b le a c t,” th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d i d n o t co m m it i m p erm i ssible do u b l e cou n ti n g in adj u sti n g B ocan eg ra ’ s off en se leve lu n d er b oth § 2 L 1 .1 (b )(6 ) a n d § 3 C 1 .2
. S ee G i l l yard , 261 F. 3d at511. T o th e e x te n t t h a t B o c a n e g r a ’ s a r g u m e n t m a yb e c o n s tr u e da s a n im p lic it
c h a lle n g e to t h e a p p lic a b ilityo f § 2 B 1 .1 (b )(6 ) m a d e fo rt h e f ir s t t im e o n a p p e a l,
w e p e r c e iv e n o p la in e r r o r . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ak er , 53 8 F
. 3 d32 4 , 33 2 ( 5 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ), ce rt . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 9 6 2 (2 0 0 9 ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t p la in ly
er ri n det er m i n i n g th a tc ar r yi ng 17 pas se nger s i n a van de si gned f or12 p a s s e n g e r s cr e a te d a ris k o f s e r io u s b o d ilyinju r y . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. G arza , 5 4 1 F .3d 2 9 0 , 2 9 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). AF F I RMED.