United States v. Hector Gomez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Ferdinand F. Fernandez (author), Mary M. McKeown, Jay S. Bybee
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 01 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50548 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03121-L v. MEMORANDUM * HECTOR GOMEZ, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Hector Gomez appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for transportation of illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Gomez contends that the district court improperly imposed a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6) because there was inadequate evidence that he intentionally or recklessly created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. The record reflects that Gomez fled border patrol agents at a high rate of speed, nearly side-swiped a border patrol vehicle, and crashed on the premises of a junior high school, resulting in serious bodily injury to the passenger of his vehicle. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the enhancement. See United States v. Mix, 457 F.3d 906, 911 (9th Cir.
2006).
Gomez also contends that the district court improperly imposed a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(7) for causing serious bodily injury because there was inadequate evidence that his actions proximately caused the passenger’s injuries. There was sufficient evidence in the record for the district court to conclude that Gomez was the cause of the passenger’s injuries.
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the serious bodily injury enhancement. See United States v. Mix, 457 F.3d 906, 911 (9th Cir.
2006).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-50548