Filed: Oct. 19, 1998
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-5003 WALLACE MIKELL TOOLE, JR., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-97-20) Submitted: September 22, 1998 Decided: October 19, 1998 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. _ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _ COUNSEL Lisa
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-5003 WALLACE MIKELL TOOLE, JR., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-97-20) Submitted: September 22, 1998 Decided: October 19, 1998 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. _ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _ COUNSEL Lisa S..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 97-5003
WALLACE MIKELL TOOLE, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(CR-97-20)
Submitted: September 22, 1998
Decided: October 19, 1998
Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney,
Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Wallace Mikell Toole, Jr., pled guilty to conspiracy to possess her-
oin, cocaine, and crack cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C.A.
§ 846 (West Supp. 1998), and received a sentence of 273 months
imprisonment. He appeals this sentence on the ground that the district
court clearly erred in enhancing his sentence for reckless endanger-
ment during flight. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.2
(1997). We affirm.
Toole distributed cocaine, crack, and heroin for several years in
Durham, North Carolina, before his arrest for the instant offense. In
December 1996, an informant cooperating with Durham police
arranged to buy heroin from Toole at a Burger King restaurant. As the
transaction was taking place in the Burger King parking lot, the offi-
cers attempted to arrest Toole, and Toole fled in his Mercedes Benz,
nearly running over one of the officers. A high-speed chase lasting
several minutes followed. Toole abandoned his car after he blew a tire
and was quickly captured.
Guideline section 3C1.2 provides for a two-level increase in the
offense level when the defendant "recklessly created a substantial risk
of death or serious bodily injury to another person in the course of
fleeing from a law enforcement officer." Mere flight from an arresting
officer does not trigger the adjustment. See United States v. John,
935
F.2d 644, 648 (4th Cir. 1991). However, endangering the lives of
police officers or bystanders does. See United States v. Luna,
21 F.3d
874, 885 (9th Cir. 1994) (high speed chase through residential area);
United States v. Hicks,
948 F.2d 877, 884 (4th Cir. 1991) (high speed
chase on rural road). Here, there was testimony at the sentencing
hearing that one of the officers had to jump out of the way of Toole's
car to avoid being run over. Toole's flight along several city streets
and a highway created a danger to cars and pedestrians. On these
facts, we have no difficulty in finding that the district court did not
clearly err in making the adjustment.
We therefore affirm the sentence. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3