United States v. Gooden
111 F. App'x 297
October 20, 2004 · Docket 04-40129
Headnotes
Generated summaries- Headnote 1
The court examined Gooden’s “inappropriate” remark to an officer, concluded it was a threat intended to obstruct justice, and held that such factual determinations are reviewed under the clear‑error standard, requiring only that the finding be plausible in the whole record.
- Headnote 2
Gooden’s brief high‑speed flight from police was held to create a substantial risk of injury, satisfying § 3C1.2. The Fifth Circuit reiterated that such factual determinations are reviewed for clear error and affirmed when plausible.
- Headnote 3
The opinion cites United States v. Greer and United States v. Huerta, stating that a factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in the record, and applies the same standard to both obstruction‑of‑justice and reckless‑endangerment enhancements.
- Headnote 4
Gooden challenged the two‑level enhancement based on an “inappropriate” remark. The court examined whether the remark qualified as a threat made with intent to obstruct, as required by the guideline, and found the district court’s determination permissible.
- Headnote 5
The Fifth Circuit holds that factual determinations of intent are reviewed under the clear‑error standard. The court affirmed Gooden’s obstruction finding because the record supported a plausible conclusion that his remark was intended to impede justice.
- Headnote 6
Gooden’s brief high‑speed flight was evaluated under § 3C1.2. The court concluded that the flight created a substantial risk of injury, satisfying the guideline’s element of reckless endangerment.
- Headnote 7
The appellate court applied the clear‑error standard to Gooden’s reckless‑endangerment finding, noting that the record made the conclusion plausible and therefore not erroneously determined.
- Headnote 8
Both the obstruction‑of‑justice and reckless‑endangerment enhancements rely on factual findings. The Fifth Circuit reviews those findings for clear error, affirming them whenever they are plausible given the entire record.
Opinion
Corey Gooden appeals his sentence following a guilty-plea conviction for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute.
Gooden first argues that the district court erred by enhancing his offense level by two levels for obstruction of justice. This enhancement was based on a comment Gooden made to a police officer after a pre-trial hearing. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Although Gooden concedes that he made an “inappropriate” remark, he argues that it was not made with the intent to obstruct justice. Whether a threat was made with the intent to obstruct or impede the administration of justice is a fact question reviewed for clear error. United States v. Greer, 158 F.3d 228, 233 (5th Cir.1998). “As long as a factual finding is plausible in light of the record as a whole, it is not clearly erroneous.” United States v. Huerta, 182 F.3d 361, 364 (5th Cir.1999). Based upon our review of the record and the circumstances under which the comment was made, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Gooden’s comment was a threat intended to obstruct the administration of justice.
Gooden also argues that the district court erred by enhancing his offense level by an additional two levels based on his high-speed flight from the police. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2. Gooden argues that his flight was brief and did not rise to the level of reckless endangerment. Whether a defendant’s conduct constitutes reckless endangerment during flight under § 3C1.2 also is a factual finding reviewed for clear error. United States v. Lugman, 130 F.3d 113, 115-16 (5th Cir.1997). We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Gooden’s brief high-speed flight amounted to reckless endangerment. See United States v. Jimenez, 323 F.3d 320, 321-24 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 847, 124 S.Ct. 124, 157 L.Ed.2d 86 (2003).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.