Opinion ID: 4512260
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Factual Error

Text: “Determination of whether facts satisfy a prescribed standard is a mixed question of fact and law. We review mixed questions under the clearly erroneous or de novo standard, depending on whether the mixed question involves primarily a 5 factual inquiry or the consideration of legal principles.” United States v. Patton, 927 F.3d 1087, 1101 (10th Cir. 2019) (alterations, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). The determination whether an assault created a substantial risk of serious bodily injury “is so fact-focused that we review for clear error.” Id. (reviewing enhancement under USSG § 3A1.2(c)(1)); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) (requiring appellate court to “give due deference to the district court’s application of the guidelines to the facts,” subject to exceptions not relevant here). The district court found that the circumstances surrounding the assault, which occurred in a “confined environment with seven detention officers in the space dealing with an aggressive prisoner,” were “fraught with danger of serious bodily injury.” R. Vol. 3 at 8. Curtis argues that the court erred in making this finding because the officer ascribed his injuries to a “scuffle with [an] inmate” on a medical intake form. Supp. R. at 4. But the court did not base its finding on the officer’s label. In any event, a “scuffle” is “[a] rough, disorderly struggle at close quarters.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (3d ed. 1996). Rough and disorderly struggles at close quarters, such as the one Curtis started, can create a substantial risk of serious bodily injury. Curtis also argues that the district court erred because courts in other cases have applied section 3A1.2(c) to more egregious conduct. But his observation says nothing about whether section 3A1.2(c) applies to assaults like Curtis’s. And other courts have upheld section 3A1.2(c)’s application in similar circumstances. See, e.g., 6 United States v. Alexander, 712 F.3d 977, 978–79 (7th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (upholding six-level increase when defendant punched police officer once in the head and missed with a second attempted punch). Indeed, the district court found that the circumstances surrounding Curtis’s assault were “more fraught with danger of serious bodily injury,” R. Vol. 3 at 8, than those described in United States v. Ashley, 141 F.3d 63, 69 (2d Cir. 1998), where the Second Circuit upheld the district court’s application of section 3A1.2(c)’s predecessor1 to a defendant that “kicked, elbowed, punched, [and] swung his arms[] at . . . officers in a frenzied attempt to avoid being arrested,” 141 F.3d at 67.2 The district court did not err in finding that Curtis’s assault created a substantial risk of serious bodily injury.