UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4507

DEDRIC LEE WILEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.

Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge.

(CR-98-7)

Submitted: February 9, 1999

Decided: March 9, 1999

Before WIDENER and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Randy V. Cargill, MAGEE, FOSTER, GOLDSTEIN & SAYERS,

P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United

States Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Resch, Third-Year Law Student, Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Dedric Lee Wiley appeals from his sentence imposed after his

guilty plea to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(d)

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998), being a convicted felon in possession of

a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g) (West 1994 & Supp.

1998); and use of a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation

of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We affirm.

Wiley robbed a bank in Roanoke, Virginia, and displayed a gun

during the course of the robbery. Two days after the robbery, Wiley

engaged between ten to fifteen police units in a high-speed chase of

over five miles. As a result of this incident, the presentence investigation report (PSR) recommended that Wiley receive a two-level

offense level increase under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 3C1.2 (1997), for recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or

serious bodily injury while fleeing from law enforcement officers.

Wiley objected to the enhancement, which objection the district court

overruled.

We review the district court's application of the upward adjustment

under USSG § 3C1.2 for clear error. See United States v. Chandler,

12 F.3d 1427, 1433 (7th Cir. 1994). A two-level increase in the

offense level is warranted when 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." USSG § 3C1.2.

After surveillance was set up around Wiley's apartment complex,

officers observed Wiley drive into the apartment complex parking lot,

then immediately attempt to leave. During the car chase that followed,

Wiley ran through two stop signs; swerved over the solid white line

at least five times; failed to yield after the officers initiated their lights

and sirens; and attempted to pass one of the police vehicles on the

right side using the shoulder of the road.

 2
At one point in the chase, speeds of 100 to 110 miles per hour were

reached. The engine in Wiley's car eventually failed, lowering the

speed of the chase to a less dangerous level. At that point, Wiley

brandished what appeared to be a pistol, as he attempted to cause the

officer behind him to rear-end Wiley's vehicle by slamming on his

brakes. One of the officers involved in the chase testified that there

was traffic on the roads that evening. Because of the risk to the pursuing officers as well as to any potential bystanders, the district court

did not clearly err in making the adjustment. See USSG § 3C1.2 and

comment. (n.4); United States v. Valdez, 146 F.3d 547, 554 (8th Cir.)

(holding high-speed chase of 70-80 miles per hour placed pursuing

officers and others in area of chase at substantial risk, even though no

specific non-law enforcement vehicles or pedestrians were placed in

harm's way), cert. denied sub nom. Johnson v. United States, ___

U.S. ___, 67 U.S.L.W. 3258 (U.S. Oct. 13, 1998) (No. 98-5873);

United States v. Conley, 131 F.3d 1387, 1389-90 (10th Cir. 1997)

(holding § 3C1.2 adjustment warranted when during high-speed

chase, suspect attempted to ram officer's vehicle), cert. denied, ___

U.S. ___, 66 U.S.L.W. 3688 (U.S. Apr. 20, 1998) (No. 97-8337);

United States v. Hicks, 948 F.2d 877, 884 (4th Cir. 1991) (leading

officers on high-speed chase endangered officers in pursuit and other

potential motorists).

Accordingly, we affirm Wiley's sentence. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set

forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3