UNITED STATES v. GLENN (2019)

Elontrae Ali Glenn pled guilty to one count of possession of firearms and ammunition by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2012). On appeal, he contends that the district court erred in in applying a two-level enhancement to his sentence pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.2 (2016) for reckless endangerment during flight. We affirm.

We review a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, first looking to whether the district court committed a significant procedural error such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range. United States v. Fluker, 891 F.3d 541, 547 (4th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). When evaluating a challenge to a sentencing enhancement, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. Id.

Glenn asserts that imposition of the two-level enhancement amounts to double counting because his conduct in fleeing from police was already accounted for in a four-level increase applied under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense. See USSG § 3C1.2 cmt. n.1 (prohibiting application of enhancement where a Chapter Two enhancement results in an equivalent or greater increase in offense level based solely on the same conduct). Although Glenn’s high-speed flight from police that prompted the reckless endangerment enhancement occurred in the course of a series of actions taken by Glenn, we conclude that the district court correctly determined that the two enhancements addressed different conduct. The felony offenses cited in the four-level § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement, specifically breaking into a motor vehicle/theft, failure to stop for a blue light, and aggravated assault, addressed conduct separate from Glenn’s 17-mile high-speed flight from police. We therefore find that both enhancements were properly applied.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.