10-1750 U.S. v. Taylor

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Bank robbery; physical restraint

Even though a bank robber only pushed a victim to the ground and ordered her into another room while holding a firearm, he properly received an enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B3.1(b)(4)(B) for physically restraining a victim.

“Carter governs our case. It accords with the decisions in all the comparable cases that we’ve found in the other courts of appeals, United States v. Stevens, 580 F.3d 718 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Miera, 539 F.3d 1232, 1235-36 (10th Cir. 2008); United States v. Ossai, supra, 485 F.3d at 32; United States v. Wilson, 198 F.3d 467, 472 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. Copenhaver, 185 F.3d 178, 182-83 (3d Cir. 1999); United States v. Nelson, 137 F.3d 1094, 1112 (9th Cir. 1998); United States v. Jones, 32 F.3d 1512, 1519 (11th Cir. 1994), and we consider it sound and decline the defendant’s invitation to overrule it. Whether a pointed gun is used to move a person into an unlocked room and keep him there, or used to move a person from one part of the robbery scene to another, the person’s freedom of movement is restrained as effectively as by shoving or dragging him into a room and locking the door. The type of conduct found in this case is a feature of many robberies but not all; goes a step, albeit a modest one, beyond the mere aiming of a gun at a stationary robbery victim (United States v. Miera, supra, 539 F.3d at 1236, gave, as an example of a bank robber who would not be subject to the enhancement, one who ‘simply walked up to the teller’s station with a gun visible in his waistband and demanded money’); and provides an a fortiori justification for the modest sentencing enhancement in this case-for remember that the sentence the judge imposed was within what would have been the guidelines range without the enhancement. The distinctions among the cases of restraint by gun are so fine, however, that sentencing judges might be better advised to assess a robbery defendant’s conduct in such cases without reliance on the physical-restraint guideline, as we said earlier the judge could have done in this case.”

Affirmed.

10-1750 U.S. v. Taylor

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Crabb, J., Posner, J.

Full Text