Court Opinion

ID: 9388817
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 18:00:46.399172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:22.868118
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20340         Document: 00516721146             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/21/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                      United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                 Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 22-20340
                                                                               FILED
                                                                           April 21, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Troy Fabian Heflin,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:21-CR-269-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Troy Fabian Heflin appeals the 41-month sentence imposed following
   his guilty plea conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted
   felon. Heflin argues that the district court erred in applying a two-level
   reckless endangerment enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 because
   his reckless conduct was not the result of attempting to flee from the

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20340       Document: 00516721146          Page: 2     Date Filed: 04/21/2023

                                     No. 22-20340

   consequences of the offense of conviction. He also argues that his conduct
   was not reckless.
            Heflin preserved his challenge to the reckless endangerment
   enhancement in the district court; accordingly, we review the district court’s
   interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear
   error. See United States v. Deckert, 993 F.3d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 2021). There
   is no clear error when the district court’s findings are plausible in light of the
   entire record. United States v. Torres-Magana, 938 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir.
   2019).
            Citing United States v. Southerland, 405 F.3d 263, 268 (5th Cir. 2005),
   Heflin argues that the § 3C1.2 enhancement was not applicable because the
   evidence reveals that he fled from law enforcement officials because he knew
   he had warrants, not because of the offense of conviction. He further asserts
   that his conduct did not create a serious risk of bodily injury and that the
   record is ambiguous as to whether he knew the police were pulling him over.
   We have held that a substantial risk of serious injury is created when police
   officers are led on a high-speed chase. United States v. Lee, 989 F.2d 180, 183
   (5th Cir. 1993). Nothing in the record suggests that Heflin was unaware that
   police were attempting to pull him over. See United States v. Gould, 529 F.3d
   274, 276 (5th Cir. 2008). Further, since the chase took place while Heflin
   was illegally in possession of a firearm, a sufficient nexus exists between his
   flight and the offense of conviction. See Southerland, 405 F.3d at 268. The
   district court’s conclusion that the § 3C1.2 enhancement was applicable
   given the facts of this case was not clear error. See Torres-Magana, 938 F.3d
   at 216. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                           2