The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-3338

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Mark T. Abbott, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 7, 1998 Filed: January 12, 1998

___________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Mark T. Abbott appeals the 240-month sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. For rever sal, Abbott argues that the district court erred by attributing 3 to 10 k ilograms of methamphetamine to him; increasing his base offense level fo r cr eating a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to another in the course of fleein g from a law enforcement officer, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual-2-

§ 3C1.2 (199 7); and assessing 3 rather than 2 criminal history points for a prio r conviction. We affirm. A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent testi fied at sentencing that the portion of the overall conspiracy in which Abbott was involved was responsible fo r approxi mately 10 pounds of methamphetamine. As a co-conspirator, Abbott wa s responsi ble for that entire amount. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manua l § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (1997) (co-conspirator responsible fo r all reasonably foreseeable acts of other co-conspirators taken in furtherance of conspiracy); United States v

. Montanye , 99 6 F.2d 190, 192 (8th Cir. 1993) (en banc). Moreover, the DEA agen t te stifiedthat Abbott personally distributed slightly less than 4 kilograms (or 8. 8 pounds) of methamphetamine. Based on the DEA agent & s testimony, which the district court credited, we do not believe the court clearly erred in finding Abbott responsible for 3 to 10 k

ilograms of methamphetamine. See United States v. Adipietro , 983 F.2d 1468, 1472 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard of review).
We li kewise reject Abbott & s argument that the district court clearly erred i n applying a 2-level increase pursuant to section 3C1.2. See United States v. Sykes , 4 F.3d 6 97, 700 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard of review). At sentencing, evidence wa s presented that after Abbott had failed to appear for his initial sentencing hearing, a coo perating individual informed officers that Abbott was traveling in a blue pick-u p truck--which the off

icers ascertained Abbott owned--pulling a trailer. An officer who pass edthe truck on the road attempted to intercept it. The driver slammed on hi s brakes, drove into a ditch, and fled on foot, leaving the vehicle running. Abbott was laterappr ehended. During a subsequent inventory search of the trailer, two officer s were overcome by anhydrous ammonia fumes; both deputies experien ced dizziness and headaches, and one experienced tightness in his chest. W e agree with the district court thatA bbott & s actions of abandoning a running vehicle containing a dangerous liqui d chemical caused a sub stantial risk of bodily harm. Cf. United States v. Luna , 21 F.3d-3-

874, 885 (9th Cir. 1994) (§ 3C1.2 enhancement proper when defendant ran stop signs and abandoned still-running car in residential area). Finally, because we conclude that the district court did not err in determining the drug qua ntity or in applying the reckless-endangerment enhancement, we decline t o review A bbott & s argument that the district court erred in assessing 3 rather than 2 criminal history points. Abbott & s 240-month sentence represents a down ward departure fromthe applicable Guidelines range, regardless of his criminal history score. Se e Uni tedStates v. Patterson , 20 F.3d 801, 808 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 513 U.S. 84 5 (1994). Abbott & s Guidelines range with the disp uted point was 324 to 405 months; the range wit hout the disputed point was 292 to 365 months. See U.S. Sentencin g Guidelines Manual, Ch.5, Pt. A (1997) (sentencing table). The judgment is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.