text:                      United States Court of Appeals
                              FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                      ___________
  
                                      No. 08-3917
                                      ___________
  
  United States of America,              *
                                         *
              Plaintiff - Appellee,      * Appeal from the United States
                                         * District Court for the
        v.                               * Eastern District of Missouri.
                                         *
  Kelvin Miller,                         *      [UNPUBLISHED]
                                         *
              Defendant - Appellant.     *
                                    ___________
  
                                Submitted: September 25, 2009
                                   Filed: December 7, 2009
                                    ___________
  
  Before MURPHY, BRIGHT, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
                             ___________
  
  PER CURIAM.
  
         Kelvin Miller appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm
  in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) on the grounds that: (1) there was insufficient
  evidence to sustain his conviction; (2) the district court1 improperly applied sentence
  enhancements under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG”) §§ 3C1.1 and
  3C1.2; (3) the district court erred in denying his motion for a downward departure or
  variance; and (4) the district court failed to adequately consider the 18 U.S.C. §
  3553(a) factors. We affirm.
  
        1
          The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern
  District of Missouri.
         After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, see United
  States v. Urick, 431 F.3d 300, 303 (8th Cir. 2005), we conclude the evidence is
  sufficient to show Miller possessed a firearm. Two police officers testified they
  observed Miller carrying a weapon as he ran through a St. Louis residential
  neighborhood. One of the officers testified that Miller pointed that weapon at him
  during the chase. An officer also testified that after Miller was arrested, he admitted
  to throwing this weapon in a nearby backyard. Officers subsequently found the
  weapon in that location. This evidence is sufficient to sustain Miller’s conviction for
  being a felon in possession of a firearm.
  
        We also conclude the district court properly imposed an obstruction of justice
  enhancement under USSG § 3C1.1 based on Miller’s repeated denials at trial that he
  possessed a weapon. See United States v. Flores, 362 F.3d 1030, 1037 (8th Cir. 2004)
  (“Committing perjury at trial constitutes an obstruction of justice within the meaning
  of § 3C1.1.”). The record also indicates that the district court applied the
  enhancement only after conducting its own independent evaluation of all the evidence.
  See United States v. Kessler, 321 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 2003). That evidence
  strongly showed that Miller lied while on the witness stand when he denied possessing
  the weapon, and the district court did not err in enhancing his sentence.
  
          Similarly, evidence supports the district court’s imposition of a sentence
  enhancement for creating a risk of death or injury during flight under USSG § 3C1.2.
  Miller admitted he fled from police, jumped out of a moving vehicle which later
  struck a parked car, led police officers on a foot chase through a residential
  neighborhood, and persistently disregarded officers’ commands to stop. The record
  also shows that Miller carried a loaded weapon during the chase and pointed it at a
  police officer, which resulted in the officer shooting Miller. This factual background
  justifies the enhancement for reckless endangerment under USSG § 3C1.2. See
  United States v. Bates, 561 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir. 2009).
  
  
  
                                            -2-
         The district court also did not err in denying Miller’s request for a downward
  departure from the guideline sentence based on Miller’s claims of diminished capacity
  and mental health problems. After reviewing the sentencing record, it is evident that
  the district court considered Miller’s request, but concluded the guideline sentence
  was appropriate and Miller had not established his case was sufficiently atypical to
  warrant a lesser sentence. See United States v. Lee, 553 F.3d 598, 601 (8th Cir.
  2009).
  
         Finally, the district court did not err in imposing a guideline sentence rather
  than one pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We have carefully reviewed the record and
  conclude the district court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors and did not abuse
  its discretion in sentencing Miller to 96 months’ imprisonment.
  
        Accordingly, we affirm.
                       ______________________________
  
  
  
  
                                           -3-
  