At page 590 to “instruments” and not to substances, such as water. Nelson does not refute, however, the district court’s finding that the assault caused serious bodily…1 citing case
- United States v. Marco Olarte-Rojas, 820 F.3d 798 (5th Cir. 2016).published See United States v. Nelson, 262 Fed.Appx. 589, 590 (5th Cir.2008) (hot water); United States v. Gedman, No. 99-50528, 2000 WL 177903 , *3 (5th Cir. Jan. 18, 2000). (fire extinguisher); United States v. *802 Coronado, No. 91-6307, 1993 WL…
v.
Antoine NELSON, Defendant-Appellant
Antoine Nelson appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea for assaulting an employee of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) & (b). Nelson’s sole argument on appeal is that the district court erred in applying U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2 based on its finding that the boiling water thrown by Nelson onto a corrections officer was a “dangerous weapon” under the Guidelines. Nelson argues that under § 2A2.2 a “dangerous weapon” refers only[*590] to “instruments” and not to substances, such as water. Nelson does not refute, however, the district court’s finding that the assault caused serious bodily injuries.
Nelson has failed to demonstrate any error in the district court’s finding that the hot water, in the manner used and in light of the injuries sustained, was a “dangerous weapon” under § 2A2.2. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.