United States of America v. Camron Jordan Henry

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1533
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Camron Jordan Henry
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: January 17, 2025
Filed: March 25, 2025
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
BENTON, Circuit Judge.
Camron Jordan Henry pled guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm as a
convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). The district
court sentenced him to 46 months in prison. He appeals. Having jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
Henry challenges the application of a sentencing enhancement for “reckless
endangerment during flight” under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2. The enhancement applies if
“the defendant recklessly created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury
to another person in the course of fleeing from a law enforcement officer.” U.S.S.G.
§ 3C1.2. This court reviews “for clear error a district court’s findings with respect
to reckless endangerment during flight.” United States v. Silva, 630 F.3d 754, 756
(8th Cir. 2011).
Henry argues the enhancement does not apply: “Armed flight, without more,
is insufficient to warrant a reckless-endangerment enhancement.” The government
argues that carrying “a loaded gun, with a chambered round, in a pocket, presents a
substantial risk of accidental discharge that endangers anyone in the vicinity.”
This is a close case, particularly since the district court did not issue an order
or thoroughly develop the record about the enhancement. The court said: “You
know, when you run from police with a gun on you, especially—my recollection is
that there was a crowd of people around when he first took off, I think the
enhancement is appropriately applied.”
This court has not decided whether possessing a firearm during flight is alone
sufficient to support the § 3C1.2 enhancement. Other circuits have held it is not.
See United States v. Zamora, 97 F.4th 1202, 1210–13 (10th Cir. 2024) (discussing
the cases). Rather, these circuits have required “something more” (e.g., the gun was
loaded or cocked) to support the enhancement. See United States v. Brown, 31 F.4th
39, 47–49 (1st Cir. 2022) (affirming application of § 3C1.2 because the evidence
showed that a loaded firearm fell from the defendant’s pocket while he struggled
with an officer); United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185, 1197–98 (11th Cir.
2015) (affirming application of § 3C1.2 because armed flight “alone is insufficient”
but evidence showed defendant possessed a loaded firearm in his pocket that “could
have accidentally discharged” when falling from defendant’s pocket). See also
United States v. Mukes, 980 F.3d 526, 538 (6th Cir. 2020) (reversing application
of § 3C1.2 when defendant dropped a loaded firearm during flight because evidence

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
did not show the firearm was “actually cocked” or otherwise “capable of discharging
in its condition”).
The Tenth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Zamora is particularly
instructive. There, the court held that while “mere possession of a firearm during
flight is insufficient to support” the enhancement, carrying a loaded firearm, with a
chambered round, unholstered is sufficient. Zamora, 97 F.4th at 1210–13. In that
case, two firearms agents testified that “a Glock loaded with a bullet in the chamber
can discharge accidentally even if the trigger is not pressed intentionally.” Id. at
1211. They also testified about the danger of carrying a gun unholstered because
the “trigger is not protected.” Id. Because of these dangers, the Zamora court held
the enhancement warranted. Id. at 1212.
Like Zamora, Henry fled police carrying in his pocket a gun loaded with a
chambered round. The record establishes that the gun “was loaded and ready to fire
such that accidental or intentional discharge was a factual possibility.” Id. Because
the loaded, chambered, unholstered gun created “the possibility of the weapon
accidentally discharging,” the court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement.
See United States v. Davidson, 933 F.3d 912, 914–15 (8th Cir. 2019) (affirming
application of § 3C1.2 because the defendant discarded the firearm during the chase,
thereby creating the possibility that it would accidentally discharge).
This conclusion is bolstered by the presence of bystanders during Henry’s
flight. The presentence investigation report said there were about 50 cars and over
200 people in the parking area when officers first arrived on the scene. The district
court inferred there was still a crowd at the time Henry fled. Henry did not object to
this inference. The presence of at least some, if not many, bystanders supports
applying the enhancement. See United States v. Cutler, 87 F.4th 893, 895 (8th Cir.
2023) (this court can affirm on any ground supported by the record).
* * * * * * *

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 4 of 4 --