from the United States District Court for the District of
Wyoming (D.C. No. 1:17-CR-00051-SWS-1)
Lee, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Virginia L. Grady,
Federal Public Defender, with him on the briefs), Denver,
Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant.
M. Conder, Assistant United States Attorney (Mark A.
Klaassen, United States Attorney, with him on the brief),
Lander, Wyoming, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
BRISCOE, KELLY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
BACHARACH, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
appeal involves a sentencing enhancement imposed after a
federal conviction. At sentencing, the district court
enhanced Mr. Clifford Young's guideline range for
recklessly endangering others while fleeing from a
law-enforcement officer. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 3C1.2 (two-level increase in the
offense level). The issue on appeal is whether the district
court's factual findings sufficed to trigger the
facts are largely undisputed. Mr. Young fled from the police.
During the flight, he threatened to shoot if the police took
action. They took action anyway, using "spike
strips" to bring Mr. Young's vehicle to an eventual
stop. But Mr. Young refused to surrender, engaging in an
armed standoff on the side of the highway. This conduct
provided an adequate basis for the enhancement; we therefore
events unfolded when Mr. Young said that he would commit
suicide in front of his ex-girlfriend and began driving
toward her house. A friend alerted police officers, who tried
to stop Mr. Young. He fled with the police in pursuit. Mr.
Young did not speed or otherwise drive recklessly during the
chase. But while driving, Mr. Young threatened to shoot the
police if they took action.
40 minutes into the pursuit, the police deployed spike strips
to puncture the tires of Mr. Young's car. The spike
strips worked, and Mr. Young's car eventually stopped.
But Mr. Young remained in his car for roughly 4-½
hours before surrendering.
Young was convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted
felon. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At
sentencing, the district court applied an enhancement for
reckless endangerment, concluding that Mr. Young's
actions had recklessly created a substantial risk of death or
injury to others. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 3C1.2. Mr. Young appeals the application of
Standard of Review
parties disagree over the standard of review. The government
asks us to apply the clear-error standard. See United
States v. Brown, 314 F.3d 1216, 1221 (10th Cir. 2003).
Mr. Young urges us to engage in de novo review.
briefing and at oral argument, Mr. Young stressed that he is
not challenging any of the district court's factual
findings; instead, he accepts the findings of fact and argues
solely that the facts are insufficient as a matter of law to
warrant the enhancement. Therefore, we apply de novo review
to Mr. Young's challenge. See United States v.
Hamilton, 587 F.3d 1199, 1222 (10th Cir. 2009) (stating
that when a defendant argues that "the facts found by