USA v. Rolando Rodriguez

Filing

USA v. Rolando Rodriguez

Doc. 0

Case: 09-41251

Document: 00511218814

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/30/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-41251 S u m m a r y Calendar August 30, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. R O L A N D O RODRIGUEZ, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Texas U S D C No. 1:09-CR-872-1

B e fo r e WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t Rolando Rodriguez pleaded guilty to possession with in t e n t to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana and was sentenced t o 136 months of imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and $7,197.04 in restitution. Rodriguez argues that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence b y six levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(c)(1) because the evidence in the r e c o r d does not establish an intentional aggravated assault on police, but rather
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-41251

Document: 00511218814 Page: 2 No. 09-41251

Date Filed: 08/30/2010

d e m o n s t r a t e s at best a negligent loss of control of his vehicle.

However,

R o d r ig u e z 's conduct, which involved threatening moves toward police, amounted t o more than mere recklessness, and thus the district court's application of the § 3A1.2(c)(1) enhancement was plausible in light of the record as a whole. See U n ite d States v. Anderson, 559 F.3d 348, 356-57 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. C t . 2814 (2009); United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir. 2006); U n i te d States v. Gillyard, 261 F.3d 506, 510 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly,

R o d r ig u e z has not shown that the district court committed clear error. See C a ld w e ll, 448 F.3d at 290. A F F IR M E D .

2