
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-2234                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                 MIGUEL SANCHEZ-TORO,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Esther Castro Schmidt on brief for appellant.            _____________________            Guillermo Gil,  United States  Attorney, Jose A.  Quiles-Espinosa,            _____________                            ________________________        Senior Litigation Counsel, Jose Ruiz-Santiago, Assistant United States                                   __________________        Attorney,  and Nelson Perez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, on                       _________________        brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                    July 18, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   Upon careful review of the  record and the                 __________            parties'  briefs, we  perceive  no  reason  to  overturn  the            sentence  enhancement  imposed  under  U.S.S.G.    3C1.2  for            reckless  endangerment during  flight.   Defendant's  conduct            came within the terms of that section, in that he accelerated            his car  toward a government  agent who had to  jump aside to            avoid impact.  See U.S.S.G.   2A1.4 (defining "reckless").                           ___                 Further, the district  court was not required  to credit            defendant's claim that he thought he  was fleeing from would-            be   assailants,  particularly   as  the   government  agents            identified themselves before defendant attempted to flee.  We            require no  additional findings on  that point.  See  Fed. R.                                                             ___            Crim. P. 32(c)(1); U.S.S.G.   6A1.3.                 Finally, the district court was not disabled from making            the  sentence  enhancement  by the  parties'  stipulation  of            facts, which omitted the circumstances of defendant's flight.            The district court properly based defendant's sentence on all            the  relevant  facts,  including  those  in  the pre-sentence            investigation report, which  facts defendant has  not denied.            See U.S.S.G.   6B1.4(d).            ___                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -2-
