Opinion ID: 590072
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: DWAI Conviction

Text: 10 Walling argues that the district court should not have considered his Colorado conviction for Driving While Ability Impaired (DWAI) when determining his criminal history category. Walling contends that under Colorado law, DWAI is a less serious offense than Driving Under the Influence (DUI), and that it therefore should be excluded under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c). 11 Application Note 5 to section 4A1.2 states, Convictions for driving while intoxicated or under the influence (and similar offenses by whatever name they are known) are counted. Such offenses are not minor traffic infractions within the meaning of § 4A1.2(c). States define terms such as under the influence in various ways. In a number of states, the term means simply that an individual's ability to drive a vehicle is impaired. See, e.g., State v. Myers, 88 N.M. 16, 536 P.2d 280, 283 (N.M.Ct.App.1975) (The term 'under the influence' has been interpreted to mean 'that to the slightest degree defendant was less able, either mentally or physically, or both, to exercise the clear judgment and steady hand necessary to handle an automobile with safety to himself and the public.' ) (citation omitted); State v. Schmitt, 150 Vt. 503, 554 A.2d 666, 669 (1988) (affirming jury instruction that defined under the influence as when a person's full mental or physical faculties, his mental or physical ability, are diminished, impaired or affected in the slightest degree by intoxicating liquor). Thus, the reference in Application Note 5 to similar offenses means offenses involving driving and alcohol impairment. 12 In Colorado, DWAI is an offense involving driving and alcohol impairment. Colorado law defines DWAI as 13 driving a vehicle when a person has consumed alcohol or one or more drugs, or a combination of both alcohol and one or more drugs, which ... affects him to the slightest degree so that he is less able than he ordinarily would have been, either mentally or physically, or both ..., to exercise clear judgment, sufficient physical control, or due care in the safe operation of a vehicle. 14 Colo.Rev.Stat. § 42-4-1202(1)(g) (Supp.1991). If a person has a blood alcohol level of less than 0.05, the statute creates a presumption that his ability to operate a vehicle [is] not impaired by the consumption of alcohol, id. § 42-4-1202(2)(a). However, if a person has a blood alcohol level between 0.05 and 0.10, the statute creates a presumption that the person's ability to operate a vehicle [is] impaired by the consumption of alcohol. Id. § 42-4-1202(2)(b). These presumptions reflect the Colorado legislature's judgment that the ability of a person operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level in the latter range is impaired. Thus, under note 5 to section 4A1.2 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, DWAI is clearly a similar offense[ ] to driving while intoxicated or under the influence. The existence of a more serious offense under Colorado law does not alter our analysis. Accordingly, we reject Walling's argument on this issue and hold that DWAI falls into the category of alcohol-related driving offenses addressed by Application Note 5. Accord United States v. Deigert, 916 F.2d 916, 918 (4th Cir.1990) (convictions for both driving while impaired and driving under the influence of alcohol properly included in criminal history calculation).IV. Sentencing Guideline Factual Findings 15 Walling asserts that the district court erred in finding (1) that he was a leader or organizer under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) and (2) that he had not sufficiently accepted responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. We review both these factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard. See United States v. Beaulieu, 893 F.2d 1177, 1181-82 (10th Cir.) (§ 3B1.1), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 3302, 111 L.Ed.2d 811 (1990); United States v. Ochoa-Fabian, 935 F.2d 1139, 1142 (10th Cir.1991) (§ 3E1.1), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1565, 118 L.Ed.2d 211 (1992). After reviewing the record, we cannot say that these findings were clearly erroneous. We therefore reject Walling's challenge to his sentence.