United States of America v. Hector Gomez

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HECTOR GOMEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-50548
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03121-L
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
MAR 01 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-50548 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 of 2 --