Court Opinion

ID: 998050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:05:39.785688+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:22.646361
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Attor-
ney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 investiga-
tion 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 pursu-
ing 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