Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Corey GOODEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-20
Citations: 111 F. App'x 297
Docket Number: No. 04-40129
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Corey GOODEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 297–299

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Corey GOODEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-40129.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 20, 2004.
Michelle S. Englade, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Frank Warren Henderson, Amy R. Blalock, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Corey Gooden appeals his sentence following a guilty-plea conviction for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute.
Gooden first argues that the district court erred by enhancing his offense level by two levels for obstruction of justice. This enhancement was based on a comment Gooden made to a police officer after a pre-trial hearing. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Although Gooden concedes that he made an "inappropriate" remark, he argues that it was not made with the intent to obstruct justice. Whether a threat was made with the intent to obstruct or impede the administration of justice is a fact question reviewed for clear error. United States v. Greer, 158 F.3d 228, 233 (5th Cir.1998). "As long as a factual finding is plausible in light of the record as a whole, it is not clearly erroneous." United States v. Huerta, 182 F.3d 361, 364 (5th Cir.1999). Based upon our review of the record and the circumstances under which the comment was made, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Gooden's comment was a threat intended to obstruct the administration of justice.
Gooden also argues that the district court erred by enhancing his offense level by an additional two levels based on his high-speed flight from the police. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2. Gooden argues that his flight was brief and did not rise to the level of reckless endangerment. Whether a defendant's conduct constitutes reckless endangerment during flight under § 3C1.2 also is a factual finding reviewed for clear error. United States v. Lugman, 130 F.3d 113, 115-16 (5th Cir.1997). We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Gooden's brief high-speed flight amounted to reckless endangerment. See United States v. Jimenez, 323 F.3d 320, 321-24 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 847, 124 S.Ct. 124, 157 L.Ed.2d 86 (2003).
AFFIRMED.
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.