US v. Cornell Evans, No. 09-5135 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5135 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CORNELL SHERON EVANS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:09-cr-00059-JBF-TEM-1) Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 3, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Keith Loren Kimball, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, Research and Writing Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Darryl J. Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cornell Sheron Evans pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). He appeals the seventy-eight month sentence he received, arguing that the district court clearly erred in applying an adjustment for reckless endangerment during Guidelines Manual § 3C1.2 (2009). Evans stipulated flight, U.S. Sentencing We affirm. that, when Virginia Beach police attempted a traffic stop of his car, he continued to drive until he lost control of his vehicle while making a turn on the rainwet road, then got out of the car and ran, throwing a loaded 9mm pistol over a fence toward an interstate highway as he went. was then apprehended. He At the sentencing hearing, the district court received evidence that, during his brief flight, Evans accelerated to a speed well over the reckless limits despite the presence of other vehicles, just barely made one turn, and later spun out of control. district court did On these facts, we conclude that the not clearly err in finding that Evans recklesslessly created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury enforcement to another officer. person USSG while § 3C1.2. fleeing See, from e.g., a law United States v. Carter, 601 F.3d 252, 254-56 (4th Cir. 2010). We district therefore court. We affirm dispense the with 2 sentence oral imposed argument by the because the facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
