* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-41223

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JECARLOS MONTRE CARTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:97-CR-27-1

 

May 27, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jecarlos Montre Carter appeals his sentence after pleading

guilty to possession of cocaine hydrochloride with intent to

distribute. He contends that the district court erred in

imposing a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. §3C1.2 for

reckless endangerment during flight. 
2

Section 3C1.2 provides for a two-level enhancement “[i]f the

defendant recklessly created a substantial risk of death or

serious bodily injury to another person in the course of fleeing

from a law enforcement officer.” The sentencing guidelines

define “reckless” as a “a situation in which the defendant was

aware of the risk created by his conduct and the risk was of such

a nature and degree that to disregard that risk constituted a

gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable

person would exercise in such a situation.” U.S.S.G. §2A1.4,

cmt. (n.1); see U.S.S.G. §3C1.2. cmt. (n.2).

In this case, at the sentencing hearing, Denton County

deputy sheriff Chris Plank testified that he chased Carter on

foot across two northbound and two southbound lanes of I-35 on a

holiday weekend with heavy traffic that was moving at the posted

speed limit of 70 mph. He stated that he then chased Carter back

across all four lanes of the interstate when Carter backtracked

in a diagonal direction. In addition, Plank testified that the

foot chase across the interstate put him in danger of getting hit

by passing vehicles and exposed the motorists to danger as well. 

The district court also viewed a video tape of the stop and noted

that the traffic was traveling at least 70 mph and several cars

appeared to have changed lanes during the incident.

Carter suggests that the two-level enhancement for reckless

endangerment during flight applies only to high-speed car chases

and barricaded standoffs. He maintains his conduct amounted to
3

instinctive flight, which is insufficient to sustain the twolevel enhancement.

While courts typically apply the two-level enhancement under

section 3C1.2 to high-speed vehicle pursuits, we are persuaded

that section 3C1.2 also applies to situations when a defendant

creates a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to

another person in the course of a chase on foot across an

interstate highway. See U.S. v. Reyes-Oseguera, 106 F.3d 1481,

1483-84 (9th Cir. 1997) (upholding two-level enhancement under

§3C1.2 based on district court’s finding that defendant’s conduct

in running across three lanes of traffic on busy thoroughfare at

night created substantial risk to motorists); U.S. v. Blake, 28

F.3d 1216, 1994 WL 318950, *2, (7th Cir. June 28, 1994) (No. 93-

3421) (unpublished).

Based on this record, we conclude that the district court

was not clearly erroneous in imposing a two-level enhancement

under U.S.S.G. §3C1.2 for reckless endangerment during flight

since its finding was plausible in light of the record as a

whole. U.S. v. Brown, 7 F.3d 1155, 1159 (5th Cir. 1993)

(citations omitted).

AFFIRMED.