it drove at high speeds on the highway, his bringing the gun into the car and handing it to Johnson, and his flight into a crowded mall after the car crashed all supported the district court’s finding that the enhancement applied. See id. at 1483-84 (finding reckless endangerment under circumstances that “recklessly created a substantial risk to the motoring public ... of collisions and injury”). In light of this conduct, Pritchard fails to show that the district court’s application of the enhancement was clearly erroneous, and his sentence is affirmed. 5. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a consecutive 24-month term of imprisonment for Johnson’s violation of supervised release. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Johnson contends that the consecutive
holding that a district courts treatment of the guidelines as mandatory renders a sentence procedurally unreasonable holding that sentencing court could consider whether the applicable guidelines were outdated and disproportionate but that imposing sentence based on the guidelines did not render sentence substantively unreasonable holding that substantial downward variance was substantively unreasonable holding that we review sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion and will only reverse a procedurally erroneous or substantively unreasonable sentence recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard