Opinion ID: 177567
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Substantial Risk of Bodily Injury Enhancement.

Text: To apply an enhancement under Section 2L1.1(b)(6), the district court must find that the defendant intentionally or recklessly creat[ed] a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person while smuggling, transporting, or harboring unlawful aliens. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6). According to the supporting commentary, this enhancement applies to a wide variety of conduct, including transporting persons in the trunk or engine compartment of a motor vehicle, carrying substantially more passengers than the rated capacity of a motor vehicle or vessel, or harboring persons in a crowded, dangerous, or inhumane condition. Id. cmt. n. 5. We review the application of the Guidelines to the facts de novo and factual findings underlying the calculation of the Guidelines for clear error. United States v. Morse, 613 F.3d 787, 796 (8th Cir.2010) (citation omitted). De Oliveira asserts that the district court erred in applying this enhancement for two reasons. First, De Oliveira argues that the record is devoid of any evidence establishing that he knew about the conditions in the homes, thereby undermining any finding of intentional or reckless action on his part. Second, De Oliveira argues that the record does not demonstrate sufficiently deplorable conditions because Agent Cottrell could not testify as to the state of the residences prior to the week of March 26, 2009, and because the government failed to show that the loss of heat in one of the homes was not a temporary result of a recent winter storm. We disagree. The record demonstrates that De Oliveira knowingly arranged to have over twenty workers reside in two small residences designed to house no more than ten individuals. We believe this type of severe overcrowding together with lack of heat and furnishings present an inherent health-and-safety risk to each of the occupants such that the application of this enhancement is warranted. Indeed, the risk of death or injury, while perhaps more remote, is similar to that in an overloaded vehicle, which we have consistently held justifies a substantial risk enhancement. See United States v. Palomares-Alcantar, 406 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir.2005); United States v. Flores-Flores, 356 F.3d 861, 862 (8th Cir.2004); United States v. Ortiz, 242 F.3d 1078, 1078-79 (8th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the district court is affirmed on this issue.