United States v. Shamauri Shivers, 56 F.4th 320

Shamauri Shivers robbed a convenience store at gunpoint; an off-duty detective observed and police established a perimeter and confronted him as he exited.
Shivers fled on foot while armed, discarded a loaded revolver in the street in view of pursuing officers, and later surrendered without resisting when confronted with a service rifle.
He pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery and to brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
The PSR recommended a two-level U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 enhancement for recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury during flight; the district court applied the enhancement, calling it a "very close call." With the enhancement, the Guidelines range was 121–130 months; the court imposed 114 months.
On appeal, Shivers argued the enhancement was unsupported by the record (mere armed flight, risk only to himself, no evidence of furtive reaching or of an accidental discharge). The Fourth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing without the § 3C1.2 enhancement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 3C1.2 enhancement applies for reckless endangerment during flight	Shivers: no substantial risk to another; he merely fled and discarded the gun in view of police; any risk was to himself; mere armed flight insufficient	Gov: Shivers fled armed, threw/dropped a loaded gun in a congested area; throwing could have involved reaching that would prompt officers to fire or caused accidental discharge or a bystander to be harmed	Enhancement vacated: record lacks evidence Shivers created a substantial risk to another; mere armed flight without "something more" is insufficient
Whether discarding the gun involved reaching or furtive movement that could prompt deadly force	Shivers: no testimony supports that he reached or made furtive movements; PSR statement not tied to record evidence	Gov: reasonable to infer he reached to throw the gun; active movement could be seen as dangerous	Court: inference unsupported by record; absent officer testimony or other evidence, finding of reaching was clear error
Whether error was harmless	Shivers: error affected Guidelines and sentence; remand required	Gov: Guidelines were not a significant factor; court indicated sentence based on 3553(a) factors and might have imposed same term	Court: Government failed to prove harmlessness; district court did not state it would have imposed same sentence without the enhancement; remand for resentencing required

United States v. Dennings, 922 F.3d 232 (4th Cir. 2019) (applied § 3C1.2 where defendant's arm movements suggested reaching for a firearm during flight and struggle)
United States v. John, 935 F.2d 644 (4th Cir. 1991) (mere flight from an arresting officer, standing alone, does not warrant enhancement)
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621 (4th Cir. 2010) (clear-error standard for reviewing factual findings)
United States v. Mukes, 980 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2020) (dropping a firearm insufficient for § 3C1.2 absent evidence the drop created a discharge risk)
United States v. McGee, 736 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2013) (government bears burden to prove sentencing enhancements by a preponderance)
United States v. Hargrove, 701 F.3d 156 (4th Cir. 2012) (harmless-error standard for sentencing enhancements)
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir. 2010) (remand required where extent of harm from sentencing error is unclear)
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189 (2016) (an incorrect Guidelines range will often affect a defendant's substantial rights and warrant relief)