United States v. Daniel W. Duran
Opinion
Opinion
Leavy, J.
Daniel Duran appeals -his sentence for armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) and (d); and use of a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1). He claims the district court erred by imposing an enhancement for reckless endangerment when no nexus existed between the crime for which he was convicted and his reckless behavior. Duran also claims that the district court erred by stating insufficient or improper reasons for its sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
On August 14, 1992, Duran robbed a bank in Salem, Oregon, using a sawed off shotgun. He abandoned his stolen getaway car that day. Four days later, in Oregon City, Oregon, Duran carjacked a taxicab and drove it toward Salem. The taxicab driver notified the county authorities. Later that day, Duran asked an agricultural worker in St. Paul, Oregon, for directions to the main road. He explained he was running from the law and that he wanted to get rid of the cab. He sáid he had stolen the cab in Oregon City and had also robbed a bank. The worker informed his supervisor of the incident.