Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10850/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10850-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cedric D. Burns
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10850

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CEDRIC D. BURNS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-39-1

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cedric D. Burns appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea 

to robbing a credit union in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and § 2. He argues 

that the district court erred in applying a four-level enhancement for abduction 

under the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A). Although 

Burns concedes that credit union employees were moved from the teller area 

to the vault, he argues that this does not qualify as an abduction under the 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 29, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-10850 Document: 00515398754 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2020
No. 19-10850

2

Guidelines because the employees were not moved from the building, no force 

was used, the employees were not used as hostages or to facilitate an escape,

and they were not bound after the robbery.

For robbery offenses, the Sentencing Guidelines provide for a four-level 

enhancement “[i]f any person was abducted to facilitate commission of the 

offense or to facilitate escape.” § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A). The district court did not err 

in imposing the abduction enhancement. The record shows that Burns used a 

replica handgun to direct the employees, who feared for their safety, to the 

vault and to a cash recycling machine to access the money that was the target

of the robbery. We have routinely held that robbery victims are abducted for 

purposes of § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A), even when they never leave the building, so long 

as the victims are forced, as here, to move from one area of the building to 

another to aid in the commission of the offense. See United States v. Smith, 

822 F.3d 755, 764 (5th Cir. 2016); see also United States v. Hefferon, 314 F.3d 

211, 224-27 (5th Cir. 2002).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-10850 Document: 00515398754 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2020