The H onorab le P hil ip P. Si m on, Un it ed Stat es D is tr ic t Court  J ud ge f or the N orther n D is tr ic t ofIndiana, s it ti ng b y d es ignat i on. 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09
- 1029 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C HARLE SO . E UB ANK S, al so known as C HU CK IE, al so known as T ROUBLE, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, We stern Div isi on. No . 3:07- cr-50058- 1

—Phi li p G . Rei nhar d,Ju dge . A RG UE D O CT OB ER 26, 2009

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 28, 2010

Befo re B AUER a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges , a nd S I MO N , D istrict Judge.  S I MO N , D i s t r i ctJudg e . Charl es Eu ban ks pl ed gui l ty to two c o unt s o fr o bb ery, 1 8 U. S
. C. § 1 95 1( a) , a nd o ne2 N o. 09
- 1029
co unto fus i nga fi r ea rm in fur th er an ce o fo ne o fthe robber i es, 18 U
. S. C. § 9 24( c)
. The di str i ct c ourtse ntenced Euba nk s to 1 92 m onths f o r the t wo r o bb er i es a nd a c o nsecuti ve 84 m onths’ se ntence f orthe fi re ar m char ge. Eu banks appeal s hi s s entence o n the robber y cou n ts cl ai m i ng tha t t he di str i ct c ourti ncor re ctl y c al cul ate d hi s o ffen se l ev el s an d cr i m i na l hi st o r y i n dete r m i ni ng hi s guidel i ne se ntence. W e agr ee, i n part, and vaca te Eu banks’ se ntence and rem and the ca se to the di st rict cour t forr ese ntenci ng.
I . B a c kg r o und Eu banks and fo ur o ther s co m m i tte d a st ring o far m ed ro b b er ies w h ich led to a fifte en -c ou n t in d ict m en t in whi ch E uba nk s was c ha r g ed i n n i ne o fthe c o unt s. Pur su a n tt o a p l e a a g r e ement, E u b a n k s p l e d g u i l t y t o t wo robber i es ( Cou nt s 12 a nd 1 4) , a nd us i nga nd c ar r y i ng a fi re ar m duri ng the co m m i ssi on o fo ne o ftho se ro bb e r i e s ( Co un t1 3 )
. As p a r to fh i s p l e a a g r e e men t, Eu banks al so sti pu l ate d t o c om m i tting the r obbe ri es al l ege d i n Counts 8 and 10 o fthe i nd i ctm ent. C ou n t 12 i nvol ved the ar m ed robber y o fa beauty supp l y s tor e, and C ount 1 3 was the gun char ge a s s o c i a t e d wi th tha tr o b b e r y . H er e’ s wh a th a pp e ne d: E ub an ks, arm ed w ith a plastic B
. B
. gun , ente red the store w ith tw o c o-d efe n d an ts , bot h p ac k i n g se m i-au to m at ic hand guns. The th ree m en pull ed out thei r guns, poi nted th em ats to r e em pl o y ee s, a nd de m an ded m o ne y fr o m the cash r egi ste r. Eubanks a nd a co- defe nd an t then beg an b ea tin g t h e s to re ow n er w i t h E u b an ks clo b b er in g h im inN o. 09
- 1029 3 the he ad w i th the B. B. gun causing brui si ng and l acer ations. The i nj ur i es r equi r ed m edi ca l a tt en ti o n, i nc l udi ng f our sta ple s t o th e s tor e o w ner’ s hea d. One ofthe codefe nd ants then f or ced a sto re em p loy ee at gunpoi nt to a ba ck ro om to r etr i eve the sto re ’ s s urve i l l ance vi deo. Eu banks knew the co- defe nd ants used and c ar rie d r eal fi re ar m s duri ng co m m i ssi on o fthe robber y. I n C ou nt 14, E ub an k s a n d tw o co-de fend an ts w ere ch ar g ed wi thro bb i nga sm al l j ewe l r y s to r e. Upon en te r i ng th e st o r e, Eub an k s ho pped o ve r the fr ont c ount era nd f or ced a sto re em plo yee to the gr ound at gunp oi nt. Euba n k s th e n d r a g g e d a s e c o n d s t o r e e mpl o y e e ab o ut si x feet, fr o m the b ac kr o o m o fthe s to r e to the fr o nt r o o m , c au singmin o r i nj ur ies co ns i st i ngo fs cr at ch es a nd brui si ng. A t the se ntenci ng hea ring, the cour t s entence d Eu banks to 84 m onths f orC ount 13, as the parti es agr eed in the pl ea de a l, b e c a us e b o th c o - defe nd a nt s u s e d a nd c a r r i e d a fi re ar m d uri ng co m m i ssi on o fthe robber y, and Eubanks was he l d r es po ns ibl e f o r the i r ac ti o ns . Re g ar di ngthe r obbe r i es a l l eg ed i n Co unt s 12 a nd 1 4, ho wev er, the di st r i ctc o ur t di sa g r ee d a t ti m es wi ththe a g r ee m en t th e p ar ti e s h ad rea c h ed an d w ith th e re c om m en d at ion s in th e Prese nt en ce R ep ort (PSR). The rob b e r y o f the b e a uty s up pl y s ho p i n Co un t12 sta r t e d wi th a b a s e o ffe ns e l e v e l o f 2 0
. Th e c o ur t t hen adde d f o url ev el s f o r o th er wi se us i nga da ng er o us w eapon under U
. S. S. G. § 2 B3. 1( b) ( 2) ( D). T he co urt al so add ed th re e l eve l s be cause a vi cti m sust ai ned i nj uri es tha twe r e s o mewh e r e b e t we e n a “ b o di l y i nj ury” an d a4 N o. 09
- 1029 “s er i o us b o di l y i nj ur y ” an d f o url ev el s f o r ab d uc tingthe v ict im
. See U. S
. S
. G. § 2 B3
. 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) a nd ( 4 )
. Th a t l ef t a to ta l o ffen se l evel o f3 1 f o r Co unt1 2, a cc o r di ngt o the dist ri ct c ourt . Th e j e we l r y s t o r e r o b b e r y i n Co un t1 4 a l s o s t a rt ed w i th a base o ffense l eve l o f20
. The di str i ct c ourtthen add ed six le vels f oro ther w i se usi ng a fi re ar m ( re cal l that th ere w as no § 924(c) ch arge assoc iated w ith C ou n t 1 4 ), two l ev el s f o r c au singb o di l y i nj ur y, a nd, a g ain, f o ur lev els for a b d u c tin g t h e v ict im
. See U .S.S. G
. § 2B 3.1( b)(2)- ( 4)
. The t o ta l o ffen se l ev elf o r Co unt1 4 w as 32
. The cour t a l so f ound that s ti pu l ate d C ount 8 car ri ed an offense l eve l o f26 and sti pu l ate d C ount 1 0 ca rr i ed an offense l eve l o f25
. Ba s e d o n the s e fi nd i ng s , the di s t r i c tc o ur tc o nd uc t e d a un it an al ysi s under U
. S. S. G. § 3 D1. 4 a nd then subtr acte d thre e l eve l s be cau se Eubanks a ccepted r esponsibi l i ty, thus fi nd i ng tha t Eubanks’ to talo ffense l eve l was 32. The d istri ct c ourtal so deter m i ned that Eu banks had el e v e n c r i mi na l h i s t o r y p o i nt s , p ut t i ngh i m i n c r i mi na l hi st or y cate gory V. Thi s y i el ded a re com m ended range unde r the g ui del i ne s o f1 88
- 235 m o nths
. The c o ur t se ntence d Eu banks to 192 m onths f orCounts 1 2 a nd 14 , t o be c onse cuti ve to the 8 4- m onth s entence i n Count 13.
I I . Discussi on On a ppea l, Eub an k s r ai se s a ho sto fargum ent s co ncer ningh o w the di s t r i c tc o ur tc a l c ul a t e d the o ffense l eve l s forthe tw o robber y c ounts. H e co ntends the dist ri ctN o. 09
- 1029 5
cour t inco rr ectly app l i ed the w eapons, inj ury, and abducti o n enha nc ement s f o r bo th r o bb er i es , an d al so th at the d istri ct cou rt i nc orre c t ly calcu lated his crim inal history poi nts. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ou rt’ s f actualfi nd i ngs f orcl earer ro r and i ts i nter preta ti on a nd app li cati on o f th e Se n te n c i n g G u id elin es d e n ov o. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Se ve rs on , 569 F.3d 6 8 3, 68 9 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ). Firs t w e w ill ad d re ss ea c h of Eu b an ks ’ ar gu m en ts , an d th en w e w ill deter m i ne i fany ofthe er ro rs were harm l ess .
A . W eap on s En h an cem en ts The di st r i ctc o ur t ta g g ed Euba nks w i tha wea po ns e n h a n c e me n t s f o r b o th C o u n t s 12 an d 1 4 , a n d h e c l a i ms th i s was a n e r r o r . F o r Co unt1 2, Eub an k s ar g ue s th atthe dist ri ct c ou rt i m proper l y a dd ed f our l eve l s t o hi s ba se offen se level un d er U
. S. S. G
. § 2B 3.1( b)(2)( D ) for a d an gerou s w e ap on “ot he rw ise used ” beca us e he h it the store o wn e ri n th e h e a d w i th a p l a s t i c B
. B
. gu n d u r i n gc o mm iss ion o fth e ro b b er y. T h is w as im p er m iss ible d ou b le counti ng ac cor ding to Eu banks b ec ause he r ecei ved an 8 4
- m o n t h se n te n c e fo r u sin g a n d ca rry in g a firea rm in Count 13 pu rs uant to 18 U .S.C . § 92 4( c)

— th e s a me co nd uc t a t i s s ue i n the e nh a nc e men t . Th us , g i v en that he was a l r ea dy puni sh ed f o r us i nga fi r ea r m , the dist ri ct c ourtco uld notenhance hi s sentence f oruse of th e B
. B
. g u n i n th e s a me u n d e r l y i n go ffe n s e . T h e g o v e r nm ent a gr ees with Eubanks. Because Eu banks chal lenge s the lega l i nter preta ti on o fthe Se ntenci ng Guidel i nes an d rele va n t s ta tu te s, w e re vie w d e n ov o. U ni t e d S t at e s v. White, 222 F.3d 363 , 372 (7th C ir. 2000).6 N o. 09
- 1029 I f a d efend an t is sen ten ced fo r using a fi rearm i n furth er an ce o fa v i o l en t cr i m e unde r § 9 24 ( c) , the s en te nc i ng cour t m ay not enhance th e d efendant’s se ntence und er the g uidel i nes forthe sam e weapon and conduct that u n d er lie th e § 92 4(c ) co n vic tio n . White, 22 2 F
. 3d at37 3; U
. S
. S
. G. § 2 K2
. 4 , c o mm e nt( n. 4 )
. And the s e nt ence und er§ 924( c) acc ounts f or a ll g uns used i n re l ati on t o th e u n d er lyin g off en se . S e eW hi te, 22 2 F
. 3d at 374 ( “[ B]ecause a § 92 4( c) penal ty acco unts f oral l o ft h e gu ns posses sed, car ri ed, o r used b y the defendant i n re l ati on t o an underl yi ng o ffense, a gui del i nes e nhancem ent c annot al so b e i m po se d f o r u se of m or e th ano ne g un in the sa m e unde r l y i ngo ffen se . ”) ; U. S
. S
. G. § 2K 2. 4, c o m m en t ( n. 4) ( i ns truct i ngs en te nc i ngc our ts no t to “ appl y a ny w eap on en ha nc em en t in the gu ideline for th e un d erlyin g off en se ” if “a co -d efe n d an t, as p ar t o ft h e join tly un d ertaken crim inal activity, pos sesse d a firearm differ ent fro m the one f or w h i ch the defe nd ant was convi cted under” § 92 4(c) )
. But “a defe nd ant m ay re cei ve both the § 9 24( c) st atuto ryse ntence an d a gui deline s enh an cem en t if th e enh an cem en t and the sta tu tory se n te n c e a re im p os ed for d iffer en t u n d er lyin g c on d u c t.” White, 22 2 F
. 3d 373. H er e, the dist ri ct c ourthel d th at the fi re ar m s that gave ri se to the § 924( c) convi cti on w er e differ ent t han the weapon r esponsibl e for the e nhancem ent. The di str i ct cour t r eas oned thatEubanks’ sentence und er§ 924( c) was f orthe sem i
- autom ati c hand gu ns poss ess ed by the c ode fe nd a nt s , wh i l e the e nh a nc e men tu nd e r U. S
. S
. G. § 2 B 3.1 (b )(2) (D ) w as for E u b an ks ’ u se of th e p las tic B .B . gu n . Th e d ist ric t c ou rtb elie ve d t h is to b e p er m iss ibleN o. 09
- 1029 7 be c a u s e § 9 2 4 ( c ) r e q u i r e s u s e o fa fi r e a r m, a n d , a c c o r di ng to 1 8 U. S
. C
. § 9 2 1 , a B
. B
. g u n i s n o t a fi r e a r m. The dist ri ct c ou rt c oncl ud ed that because Eubanks co uld not ha v e b e e n s e nt e nc e d u nd e r § 9 2 4 ( c ) f o r u si ngthe B. B. g un, h i s u s e o f th e we a p o n wa s n o t s u b s u me d by t he § 9 24( c) se ntence, and the f our-l evel enhancem ent was p rop er. The probl em with thi s a nal ysi s i s that forenhancem en t p u rp os es , rea l gu n s a re tre at ed as ind ist in gu ish ab le fro m fak e g u n s. White, 222 F. 3d at 375 n.7. T o h o ld ot h e rw i se w ou ld l ea d t o the pe r ve r se r es ul t th ata de fen dan t w ho use s a r ealgun and a f ake gun i n the c om m i ssi on ofthe sam e o ffense i s e l i gibl e t o re cei ve a hi gher sente nce th an a defe nd ant who used two re alguns to com m i t the sa m e cr i m e. Thi s i s be cau se the for m er defe nd ant co uld rec eive bo th a sta tutor y s entence und er§ 924 (c ) fo r the r ealgun and a Gu i del i nes enha nc ementf o r the fak e g un, whi l e th e l at te rde fen d a n t, w h o s e c o n d u c tp r e s e n t s a g r e a t e r r i s k o fh a r m, coul d onl y r ecei ve either the st atuto ryse ntence or the Gui del i nes e nhancem ent, but not both. W e d o not i nter pret the Gui del i nes t o produce thi s r esul t which i s cl ear l y c ontr ar y t o thei r pol i cy and pu rpos e. Id
. I fwe w er e t o adopt the dist rict cour t’ s r eas oni ng, Eu banks w oul d b e s ubj ect to an enhancem ent under U. S
. S
. G. § 2B 3
. 1 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( D) f o r o the r wi s e us i nga pl a s t i c B. B. g un, b utwoul d ha ve b ee n pr ec l ude d fr o m s ucha n e nhancem ent i fhe ha d beat the s tor e o w ner w i th a r eal fi re ar m . S uch a r u lin g w ou l d not o nl y b e co ntra ryto the pol i cy and pu rpos e o fthe gui del i nes, but w oul d l ead8 N o. 09
- 1029 to the o dd r es ul t we c au ti o ne d a g ains t i n Whi te . See a lso U nite d State s v. Katalini c, 510 F.3d 744 , 747-48 (7th C ir. 2007 )
. Thus, the sent ence und er§ 924( c) “a ccount[ ed] f or al l o fthe guns poss ess ed, car ri ed, o r u sed ” byEubanks an d the c o - def en dan ts i n r el at i o n t o the r o bb ery, i nc lu d in g t h e p l a s t i c B .B . gu n . White, 222 F.3d at 374
. So the di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s f o ur - l e v e l e nh a nc e men t un de r U. S
. S
. G. § 2 B3. 1( b) ( 2) ( D) was i m perm i ssibl e doubl e co unti ng. Regar ding Count 14, Eubanks a rgues that the di str i ct cour t’ s s i x-l eve l weapons enhancem ent for“o ther w i se usi ng” a fi re ar m u nd erU
. S. S. G. § 2 B3. 1( b) ( 2) ( B) was a l s o i mpr o pe r . R e c a l l tha ti n the j e we l r y s t o r e r o b b e ry , E u b an ks h op p ed ov er th e fro n t c ou n te r a n d p oin te d h is we ap on ata s to r e empl o y ee, f o r cingthe e m pl o y ee t o the grou nd
. Eu ban k s con ten d s tha t this con d uc t only w arra nted a fi ve- l eve l enhancem ent forbr andishi ng a fi re ar m , and i nd eed thi s i s what the parti es sti pu l ate d to i n the ple a a gr eem ent. The di stri ct c ourtdi sag re ed hol ding th at bec ause Eu banks poi nted the w eapon a t a spe ci fi c vi ct i m a nd puttha t vi ct i m t o th e g r o und, he p er so n aliz ed th e t h re a t . T h e d ist ric t c ou rtfeltth at th is conduct w as “otherwis e using” the fire ar m ( a s i x-l eve l enhancem ent) , r atherthan bra nd i shi ng the fi re ar m ( a fi velev el e n h an c em en t). See U
. S. S. G
. § 2B 3.1( b)(2)( B ) an d ( C ). T h e d efin itio n s o f “ b ra n d ish in g” a n d “o th er w ise u se ” in th e g u id elin e s a re larg ely u n h elp fu l. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Herna nd ez , 106 F.3d 737, 741 (7th C ir. 1997 ). Th e term “br andishe d” m eans that “a ll or part ofthe w eapon w as d isplayed , o r the p resen ce of the w eap on w as oth erw i se m ade kno w n to anotherp er son, in orderto i nti m i dateN o. 09
- 1029 9 tha tp e r s o n. ” U. S
. S
. G. § 1B1
. 1 , c o mm e nt( n. 1 ( C) )
. By contr ast, the gui del i nes defi ne “o ther w i se use” as “con d uc t [that] d id n ot am ou nt to the d ischa rge of a fi re ar m but w as m or e than br andishi ng, d ispl aying, o r po s s e s s i nga fi r e a r m o r o the r da ng e r o us we a po n. ” U. S
. S
. G. § 1 B 1.1 , com m en t (n .1(I) )
. W e h av e p re vio u sly h eld tha t“ po i nt i nga we a po n a ta s pe c i fi c v i c t i m c r e a t e d a perso nal i zed thr eato fhar m , ” warr anti ng an “otherwis e u se ” a dj u st m en t. U n i t e d S ta tes v. Wa rren , 27 9 F
. 3d 561, 563 (7th Cir. 2002); U ni t e d St at e s v. Tayl or, 135 F. 3d 478, 48 3 (7th C ir. 1998). C onv ersely , b ran d ishing typ icall y occu rs w here a defe nd ant g ener al ly displ ays a w eapon o r po i nt s th e wea p on at a g r o up o fpe o pl e r athe r tha n a sp ec ific in d ivid u al. See Herna nd ez , 106 F
. 3d at741 ( no ting the di ffer ence between “poi nti ng o r w avi n g about a fi re ar m and l eve l i ng the weapon at the head o fa vi cti m ”)
. Because w e have no re aso n to doubt th at E u banks poi nted hi s weapon at a s peci fi c em ployee and f or ced the e m plo yee t o th e g ro und , the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s f actual fi ndi ngwas no t cl ea r l y e r r one ous , a nd the s i x- l ev ele nhancem ent for“o ther w i se usi ng ” th e fi re ar m i n Count 14 w as ap p ro p ria te . See U
. S. S. G
. § 2B 3.1( b)(2)( B ).
B. Inju ry En h an cem en ts Eu banks conte sts the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a pp l i cati on o f i nj u r y e n h a n c e me n t s f o r b o th C o u n t s 1 2 a nd 1 4
. He ar gues the di str i ct c ourterr ed byas ses si ng a thre e- l eve l enhancem en t in Count 12 ( the b eautysupply sto re r obber y) bas ed on a fi nd i ng tha t t h e victi m sust ai ned an inj u ry b et w ee n b od ily inj u ry an d se riou s b od ily inj u ry . See10 N o. 09
- 1029 U. S
. S
. G. § 2 B3. 1(b) ( 3)
. Eub an k s co nt en ds th atthe v i ctim ’s i nj ur i e s i n Co un t1 2 , wh i c h i nc l ud e d b r ui s e s a nd l a cer atio n s t o th e v ict im ’s h e a d , w er e m or e a kin to bo d ily inj u ry , w ar ra n tin g a tw o-le ve l en h an c em en t. Id
. H e a l so a r g ue s t h a tth e d i s t r i c tc o u r te r r e d b y i n c r e a s i n gt wo le ve l s f o r b o di l y i nj ur y i n Co unt1 4 ( th e j ew elry store robbe ry). I n th at robbe ry, Eu ban ks d ragged a store empl o y ee b y herha i r c au singhe ad pain, s cr ape d a nd blood ied kn ees, bruises on he r arm s, an d da m aged fingernai l s a nd hands. The inj uri es did notr equi re m edi cal attenti on. A ccor ding to Eu banks, the re cor d show s these i nj uri es w er e m i nor, r atherthan si gni fi cant, and thus a tw o- l eve l i ncre ase was exces si ve. The g ui del i ne s defi ne “ bo di l y i nj ur y ” a s “ an y s i g ni fi ca nt inj u ry ; e . g. , an inj ury th at is painfu l an d obvious, or is ofa type f orwh i ch m edi calat tenti on o rd in ari l y would be so ug ht
. ” U. S
. S
. G. § 1B1. 1, c o m m en t ( n. 1( B) )
. “ S er i o us b o d i l y i nj ur y ” i s d e fi n e d a s a ni nj u r y i n v o l v i n g“ e x t r e me physi calpai n” o r “r equi ringm edi cali nter venti on s uch as su rg er y, h os p ita liza tio n, or p h ys ica l reh ab ilita tio n .” U .S.S.G . § 1B 1 .1 , com m en t (n .1(L )). A s n ot ed , a bo d ily inj u ry en h an c em en t re q u ire s a tw o-le ve l in c r ea se , w h ile a s er i ous b odi ly i nj ury enhancem ent c ar ri es a f our- l eve l increas e. U
. S. S. G
. § 2B 3.1( b)(3). I n C ou nt 12, th e d istri ct cou rt cons ide r e d th e victim ’s affid a v it a n d a p h ot og ra p h of th e v ict im ’s inj u rie s in d et er m in in g t h e e x te n t o f t h e inju rie s. T h e c ou rth eld th a tb e c a us e the b r ui s e s a nd l a c e r a t i o ns r e qui re d m edi ca l a tt en ti on, i nc l udi ngf o urs ta pl es t o c l o se the he a d wo u n d , a n d b e c a u s e th e v i c t i m a l mo s t l o stc o n-N o. 09
- 1029 11
sc i o us ne ss , the i nj ur y fell so m ewhe r e i n the c o nt i nuum b e t we e n “ b o d i l y i nj u r y ” a n d “ s e r i o u s b o d i l y i nj u r y, ” an d so the c ourtas ses sed a t hree

- l eve l i ncre ase . The di str i ct co ur t was wel l wi th i n i ts di screti o n in fi ndi ngtha t th e i nj uri es w er e g re ate r than a “si gni fi cant” but n ot quit e “se ri ous. ” See e.g., U nited S ta tes v . Ledfo rd, 21 8 F
. 3d 684, 69 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( bod ily i nj ury w here vi cti m suffer ed “b ru isin g on h er sid e a n d arm ”); U ni t e d St at e s v. Bogan , 267 F.3 d 6 1 4 , 6 24 (7th C ir. 2001) (seri ou s bod il y i njury w h e r e v ict im su ffer ed lac er at ion s re q u irin g s u tu re s, a f r a c t ur e d e y e - s o c k e t, e mot i o na l di s t r e s s , m i g r a i ne h e a dach es, an d th e p o t en tial loss ofteeth ). Th e d istri ct cou rt i s in the bestposi ti on t o m ake thi s f ac tu aldeter m i nati on aft er vie w in g th e r e lev an t e vid en c e. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Ha mm , 1 3 F
. 3d 11 26 , 1 12 8 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 4) ( “Be ca us e th e dist ri ct c ourthear s thi s e vi dence, i t i s b y far bes t- sui ted to asses s the se m yriad factors an d de term ine w he th er a
‘ si gni fi cant inj ury’ has occur re d.” ) ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. La nc a ster, 6 F. 3d 208, 21 0 ( 4th Ci r. 19 93) )
. The di str i ct cour t’ s three

- l eve l enhanc em en t in Count 12 w as enti re l y a pp ro pri ate . Si m i l ar l y, i n Count 14, the dist ri ct c ourt exam i ned an affid av i t a n d p h ot og ra p h s o f th e v ict im ’s inj u rie s in d eterm ining th at a bod il y i njur y e nh an cem en t w as w arran ted. The c o ur t f o und tha t th e vi ct i m ’ s sc r ape s an d br ui se s amoun te d t o s i g ni fi ca nt i nj ur i es th at wer e “pa i nful an d o bvi ous. ” Our c ase l aw supports thi s fi nd i ng. See Led fo rd, 218 F.3d at69 1; Ha mm , 1 3 F
. 3d at 11 27
- 28 ( fi ndi ng bodi l y inj ury w here vi cti m “s uffe re d bum ps and brui ses an d ha d the wi nd kno ck ed o uto fhi m a s a r es ul t o fb eing hit an d knoc ked d o w n ” an d “su staine d a back inj ury12 N o. 09
- 1029
r equi r i ngc hi r o pr ac ti c tr ea tment ”)
. And, o nc e ag ain, because we l ar gel y deferto t h e d i str i ct c ourto n thi s f actspeci fi c i nqu i ry, abs ent c l earev i dence to the contr ar y, th e fin d in g sh ou ld n otbe d ist u rb ed on ap p ea l. S e eHa mm , 13 F. 3d at 11 28
. The two- l eve l bo dil y inj ury enhancem en t in Cou nt 14 w as th us prop er.
C . A b d u ction En h an cem en ts I n a r obbe ry c ase, the gui del i nes s ensibl y punis h an abd uc tion o f a v ictim ( a four-point enh an cem en t) m ore hars hl y than a re str ai nt of a vi cti m ( a tw o- p oin t e nhancem en t). See U. S
. S
. G. § 2 B3. 1(b) ( 4)
. Butthe l i ne b etwee n a re str ai nta nd a n ab du c t i o n i s a b i th a z y . Eu b a nk s s a ys that the c o nd uc ti n Co un t1 2 , i n whi c h o ne o fthe c odefe nd ants for ced an e m plo yee to the backo fthe beauty supp l y s tor e t o re tr i eve a surve i l l ance v i deo, was a “ re st ra in t” n otan “ ab d u c tio n .” H e a lso co n te n d s t h at in th e j ewe l r y s to r e r o bb ery i n Co unt1 4, w he r e th e vic tim w as d ra gg ed les s t h an six fee t, th e c on d u c t s h ou ld l i kewis e h av e be en deem ed a r est ra i nt i nstea d of anabduc ti o n. U nd erthe guidel i nes, an abductio n occ urs w hen “a vi cti m was f or ced to acc om pany an o ffend er t o a d ifferent loca t io n . ” U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1.1, com m en t (n.1( A ))
. Restr ai nt i s “ the for cibl e r est ra i nt o fthe vi c tim s uch as b y b e i ngt i e d, b o un d, o r l o c k e d u p. ” U. S
. S
. G. § 1 B1
. 1, co m m en t ( n. 1( K) )
. H er e, the i ss ue tur ns o n whe th erthe sto re em plo yee s were f or ced to acco m pany the defe nd ants to “a differ ent l oca ti on. ” I fthe answ er to that quest i on i s ye s, the n a n ab du c t i o n o c c ur r e d. Be c a us e thi s de pe nd sN o. 09
- 1029 13
o n a n int er pr et at i o n o fthe Sent en cingGui del i ne s, o ur re vie w is d e n ov o. White, 22 2 F
. 3d at 372. Eu banks ar gues that f or ci ng an em plo yee to ano ther ro om i n the sam e sm al l bui l ding w ar ra nts onl y a twol ev ele nh an ce m en t f o r r es tr aint . Bo ththe PS R a nd the gov er nm ent ( at l eas t in i ts bri efi ng i n the dist ri ct cou rt) agr eed thatthe c on d u ct in both robber i es w as bett er ch ar ac teri ze d a s a r es tr aintr athe r tha n a n abduc ti o n. No ne the l e s s , the di s t r i c tc o ur t sua s pontehel d that t ra nspo r tingthe v i cti m s fro m o ne r o o m t o a no th eri n the sa m e bui l di ng

— eve n i f they ar e sm al l re tai l st or es

— sat i sfi ed the m ove m ent “ to a di fferent l oca ti on” re quir em ent, thus warr anti ng a f our- l eve l a b d ucti on e nhancem en t forb o thr o bb er i es . Re ca l l tha t i n Co unt1 2 ( th e beautysupply sto re r obbe ry ) the vi cti m was tak en to th e b ac k roo m to ret rie ve th e s u rv eilla n c e t ap e w h ile in C ount 1 4 ( the j ew el ryst or e r obbe ry ) the vi cti m was dr ag g ed ab o uts i x feet, a gai n fr o m the b ac kr o o m t o the f r o n to fth e s t o r e . T h e c o ur t f o u n d th a tmo v i n ga n e mpl o y ee t o a no th err o o m was mor e se r i o us tha n k ee pi ng all of t h e e m p loy ee s in th e s am e ro om b e c a u s e it i so l at ed th e em p loy ee , i nc r ea singthe l i k el i ho o d tha t th e em p loy ee would r esi st and thus i ncre asi ng the chance ofi nj ury. A n a b d u c tio n en h an c em en t is n otsu p p or te d by th is Ci r cui t’ s case law. I n U nited Sta tes v. C a rter, 41 0 F
. 3d 942, 954 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) , we hel d that for ci ng a bank tel l erat gunp o i nt f r o m the b a c k v a ul t t o he r dr a we r a g a i ns t her wi l l c o ns ti tu t e s a r e s t r a i n t . An d in a s i mi l a r c a s e , we hel d that a rest ra i nt enhancem ent was appro pri ate14 N o. 09
- 1029
w h er e th e d efe n d an t d ire c te d t h re e b an k te llers to a sm all ro om in t h e b a c k of th e b an k a t g u n p oin t. U ni t e d S t at e s v. D o ubet, 969 F.2d 34 1, 34 6 ( 7t h C ir. 19 92 ); see also U nited St at e s v. Ne l s on , 137 F. 3d 1094, 1112 ( 9th Cir . 1998) (“[O ] rder [ i ng] a j ew el ryst or e e m plo yee and custo m erto the b ack ro om a t gu npoint
. . . co nsti tutes physi calr est r aint . ”)
. By c o nt r as t, f o r cing a b an ke m pl o y ee a t g unp oint from a p arking lot into th e ban k w arran ted a fo url ev el e n h an c em en t fo r ab d u c tio n . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tayl or, 12 8 F .3d 11 05 , 111 0-1 1 (7 th C ir. 19 97 ); see a l so U nited S ta te s v . Ga ll, 11 6 F
. 3d 228, 23 0 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) ( abducti on enh a n c e me n tp r o p e r wh e r e v i c t i ms we r e f o r c e d a tg unpoi nt i nto tr ucks an d d ro ve ar ound “a s i gni fi cant di sta n c e” ); U nite d State s v. D avis , 48 F. 3d 277, 2 7 9 ( 7 th Cir. 1995 ) ( f or ci ng vi cti m atgunpoi nt fro m pa rk in g l ot to inside the cred it union satisfi ed abd uc tion requ irem en t). The dist ri ct cour t re l i ed on a re centl y deci ded Fou rth C irc u it c as e, U ni t e d S t at e s v. O s b or ne, 514 F.3d 377( 4th Cir. 2008 ) , i n fi nd i ng the abducti on e nhancem ents appli cabl e. I n O s b or ne, the F o ur thCi r cui t be g anb y fi ndi ngthe “abs ence ofm ove m ent a cro ss a bui l ding thre shol d or pr o per tyl i ne do es no t ba r the c o nc l us i o n tha t m o ve m en t
‘ to a di ffer ent l oca ti on’ o ccurr ed. ” Id . at 3 89 . In st ea d , i t adopted a m or e fl exibl e, case by ca se approach that did not m ech a n ic a lly rel y “on th e pre sen ce or absen ce of doorw ays , l ot l i nes, thr esho l ds, and the l i ke. ” Id
. at38 9- 90 (inter nal quotat i ons om i tte d). Fr om ther e, the Os b or ne cour t hel d that the defendant’s f or ced m ove m ent o f W al gr eens em plo yee s fro m the pharm acy sect i on thro ugh th e st o r e ar ea t o the fr o ntdo o r o fthe W al g r ee ns b ui l di ng am ou n te d t o a b d u c tio n u n d er th e g u id elin es . Id
. at 39 1. InN o. 09
- 1029 15
so fi ndi ng, the c o ur t r el i ed he av i l y o n the fact tha t th e d ef en dan t f o r ce d the v i ct i m s to a cc o m pan y hi m s o he c ou ld “k ee p [ ] [ t h e ] vic tim s c los e b y a s re ad ily acces sibl e ho sta ges . ” Id
. at39 0. T h e f a c t s h e r e a r e s i g n i fi c a n t l y d i ffe r e n tfr o m O s b or ne . In O s b or ne, the defe nd ant for ced st or e e m plo yee s fro m an i nd ep en dent sec ti on o fthe sto re , wh i ch w as separ ate d by a s ecure d do or and onl y a cces sibl e byautho ri zed per so ns v i a k ey pad , thro ug h the e nt i r e bui l di nga nd o ut to th e fro n t d oo r. M o r e im p or ta n tly , th e v ict im s in O s b or newer e es se nt i al l y t ak enho st ag e to f ac i l i ta te the de fe nd a nt ’ s e s c a pe

— w hi ch is the type o fco nd uct “pl ai nl y t ar get ed by the abductio n enhancem ent. ” O sbo rne, 514 F.3d a t 390. But i n Count 12, a co- defe nd ant for ced a s tor e e m plo yee t o th e b ack ro om o fa re tai l bea uty su p p l y st or e t o re tr iev e a su rv eilla n c e v id eo . A n d in Count 14, the vi cti m was m ov ed n o m or e than si x feet . T h u s, th e d ist an c e a n d n at u re of th e c on f i n em en ts in th i s ca se wer e m at er i al l y di ffer en t th ani n O s b or ne . W e thi n k th at thi s ca se i s ind i stingui shabl e fro m cas es such as C a rter a nd D o ubet
. Underthe se f ac ts , a nd tak i ng i nto accou nt the physi caldi m ensi ons ofthe str ucture s a t i ssue, tr anspor ti ng the v icti m s fro m o ne r oo m to an o th eri s si m pl y no t en o ug h f o r abduc ti o n. To fi nd o th er wi se woul d vi r tu al l y en su r e th at an y m o ve m en t o fa v i c t i m fr o m o n e r o o m t o a n o the r wi t hin th e s a me bui l ding, w i thout any othe r agg ra vati n g ci rcum sta nces, w ou ld resu lt in a n ab d uc tion en ha nc em en t. W hile there m ay w el l be si tuati ons i n w hi ch an abdu cti on e nhancem en t is p r op er ev en th ou gh th e v ict im rem ain ed w ith in16 N o. 09
- 1029
a si ngl e bui l ding, thos e f acts ar e not prese nt here
. T h us, the di str i ct c ourter re d by e nhancingEubanks’ o ffense l eve l s four p oin ts f orCounts 1 2 a nd 14
. I nstea d, these counts shoul d be e nhanced tw o l eve l s e ach f orr est ra i nt.
D . C rim in al H is tory Fin ally , E u b an ks ch alle n ge s t h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d et er m ina ti o n tha t hi s cr i m i na l hi st o r y po i nts t o ta l ed el ev en, p u tt in g h im in c rim in al h ist or y c at eg or y V . A t is su e is w hetherthe dist ri ct c ourtco rr ectly a sse sse d fo ur points for tw o juv en ile of f e n se s. T h e firs t o ffen se oc c u rre d in July 2001, w he n E ub an ks w as ch arged w ith th eft ofa fi r ea r m a nd pl ac ed o n pr obat ion. The n in May 20 02 , he was c ha r g ed wi tht wo c o unt s o f ar m ed r o bb ery a nd o ne c ou n t o f ag gr av at ed rob b er y. Fo r th es e o ffen se s, h is pr o b a t i o n f o r the theft o fa fi r e a r m o ffe ns e wa s r e v o k e d, and Eu banks w as sente nced to the I l l i noi s D ep ar tm ent o f Corr ecti ons on Octo ber 2 4, 2003
. H e was paro l ed on J une 2 9, 2 00 4. A ll o ffen se s wer e adj udi ca te d unde r the sam e c ase num ber
. The di str i ct c ourtas ses sed two poi nts f orthe theft o fthe fi re ar m and two p oin ts f orthe ar m ed robber y o ffenses bec au se the i nci dents were separ ate offenses under the gui del i nes. Eu banks argues that the di str i ct c ourtdoubl e co unted by gi vi ng hi m f our poi nts

— t wo f o r th e th e fto ffi r e a r ms o ffe n s e a n d t w o mo r e f o r th e a r me d r o b b e r y . He bel i eve s that he shoul d have o nl y b een g i ven a to talo f tw o p oin ts be c au se th e a rm e d r o b b er y is w h at led to h is proba ti on be i ng r evo ked f orthe theft of fi re ar m s o ffense. N o t so . The unde r l y i ngc o nv i ct i o n i s th e th efto ftheN o. 09
- 1029 17

I n f ac t, Eu b an k s’ doc ke ts he ets t at es thatthe s en t en c e f or 1 the a rm ed r obbe ry offen s es was t o r un “ c onc ur re nt ” m ea ni ng th a t th e se n t e n ce for th e a rm ed ro b b er y o ffen se s w a s a d iffer en toffen s e f ro m the r evo c at i on ofpr obat i on/the ftofthe fir earm s ente nce. fi re ar m i n 200 1. Thi s i s the o ffense t hat l anded Eubanks on probati on. The theft o fthe fi re ar m and the re voca ti on ofpro bati on a re thus a singl e co nvi cti on

— i nd eed, they ar e l i ste d as s uch on Eubanks’ j uveni l e d ock et sheet
. See U .S.S.G . § 4A 1.2 (k), co m m en t (n .11 ); U ni t e d S ta tes v. P a lm er, 9 46 F
. 2d 97, 9 9 ( 9th Ci r . 1 99 1) ( ho l di ngthe “ se ntence onthe unde r l y i ngc o nv i ct i o n a nd o n the re vo cati on o fpro bati on i s co nsi dered a ‘ si ngl e co nvi cti o n’ ”)
. Be ca us e Euba nk s r ec ei ve d a s en te nc e o fmore th an six ty d ay s o n th e re vo c at ion, he w as p r o p e rly asses sed a tw o-l evel enh an cem en t in his c r im inal history sco re . T he arm ed robbery

— the o ffense that led t o the r evo cati on o fhi s probati on

— w as a s ep ar ate , unrel ate d offense. The dis tr i ct c ourtco rr ectly c om pu ted this o ffense separ ate fro m the re voca ti on o ffense for the purpose of cri m i nal hi sto rypoi nts, despi te the fa c t the o ffenses w ere all ad j ud icated un d er th e sam e j uv en il e case nu m ber. 1 In d e e d , “[p ]rior se n te n c es alw ay s a re co u n te d se p ar at ely ifthe sen ten ces w ere im p osed f o r offen ses th at w ere sep arated by an inte rven ing arrest.” U
. S. S. G
. § 4A 1.2( a)(2)
. M er el y b ecause Eubanks w as sente nced f orthes e offe n ses o n the sam e day does m ake them o ne char ge f or c rim in al h ist or y p u rp os es . Se ee . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. St at ham , 58 1 F .3d 54 8, 55 4-5 5 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ) (d ist ric t c ou rtp ro p er ly18 N o. 09
- 1029
as sig n ed se p ar at e c rim in a l his to ry p oin ts for m u ltip le o ffen se s se nt en ce d o n the s ame da y, wi tht wo o fthe sente nces run n i ng co ncurr ent, “be cause each o ffense w as se par at ed bya n int er ve ni nga r r es t an d t he e ve nt s an d vic tim s in vo lve d in t h e t h re e c as es w er e c om p let ely differ ent. ”)
. So Eu banks w as cor re ctl y g i ven a n additi onal two
- po i nti nc r ea se i n h i s c rimi na l hi st o r y s co r e f o r the ar m ed robber y. Eu banks conte nd s, how eve r, that the fi ve- yea r sta tute of lim i tat i ons und erU
. S. S. G. § 4A 1. 2( d)( 2) ( B) pr ecl ud es ane nha nc ementf o r the the ft o fa fi r earm c ha r g e. But U
. S. S. G
. § 4A 1.2( d )( 2)(A ) is th e ap p li cab le sect io n here because Eubanks’ ju veni l e s entence exce eded si xty day s, a nd un dertha t pr o vi si o n the c l o cks ta r ts whena d efe n d an t is re lea se d from co n fin em en t. See U. S
. S
. G. § 4 A 1. 2( d)( 2) ( A )
. Becau se Eu banks w as re l eas ed fro m co nfi ne m en t i n J une 20 04 f o r the the ft o ffi r ea r m a nd ar m ed robber y c harg es, and the i nstant offenses o ccurr ed i n J ul y 2 0 0 7, the o ffe ns e s f a l l wi thin the fi v e - y e a r st atute of l i m i t at ion s. C on se q u en tly , th e d ist ric t c ou rtco rre c tly cal cul ate d Eu banks’ cr i m i nal hi sto ry .
E. Th e Err or s W er e Not H arm l ess A s d et aile d ab ov e, th e d ist ric t c ou rtim p ro p e r ly appli ed the gui del i nes in cal cul ati ng Eubanks’ se ntence. B u tth e g o v e r n me n tc o n t e n d s th a ta n y e r r o r s w e r e h a r ml ess . “To prove h ar m less er ro r, the gov er nm ent m ust be ab l e to s ho w tha t th e gui del i ne s er r o r di d no t affec t th e dist ri ct c ourt ’ s s el ecti on o fthe sente nce i m p ose d.” U nitedN o. 09
- 1029 19 St at e s v. Abb as , 56 0 F .3d 66 0, 66 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( i nter nal qu otations om itted ). I n d eterm in ing w he th er the ab ove errors w ere harm l ess , we m ust fi rs t e stabl i sh w hetherthe dist ri ct co ur t’ s g ui del i ne s en te nc e fel l wi th i n the p ro per l y c al cul ate d gui de lin e r ange. Counts 1 2 a nd 14 bo th st ar t with a ba se offense l eve l o f20
. Cou n t 12 s houl d be e nhanced thre e l eve l s forthe vi cti m ’ s inj u ri es and tw o l eve l s for re st ra in t, for a to ta l offen s e l ev el of 2 5. C ou n t 1 4 s h ou ld b e i n c r e a s e d s i x l e v e l s f o r o th e r w i s e u s i n ga fi r e a r m, tw o l eve l s forbo dil y inj ury, and two l eve l s forrestra i nt. This l eave s a to talo ffense l eve l o f30 f orCount 14
. Bec au se the r e ar e m ul ti pl e co unt s we mustde te r m i ne th e co m bine d o ffen se l evel u nde r U. S
. S
. G. § 3 D1. 4. The com bined offe ns e levels for each group are 30 (Cou nt 14), 25 (C ou n t 12), 26 (C ou n t 8), an d 25 (C ou n t 1 0). See U. S
. S
. G. § 1 B1. 2( c) , co m m ent ( n. 3) ( counti ng st i pu l ate d offenses i n ple a a gr eem ents i n com pu ti ng t h e c om bi ned offense l eve l )
. Pursuant to the uni t a nal ysi s in U .S.S.G . § 3D1. 4, Cou nt1 4 i s as si g ne d o ne uni t as th e g r o up wi ththe h igh es t o ffen se ; C ou n t 8 is giv e n o n e u n it b ec au se it is w i thi n f our l eve l s of the gr oup w i th the hi ghest offen se l eve l ( i
. e. , Count 14); o ne- hal funi ts ar e g i ven forbo th C ou n ts 12 an d 10 be c a u s e t h e y a re m or e t h an fou r lev els b elo w th e hig h es t o ffen se lev el. See U. S
. S
. G. § 3 D1. 4( a) a nd ( b)
. S i nce t h ere i s a to talo fthr ee unit s, thr ee offense levels are ad d ed to the grou p w ith th e highe st score ( a g a i n, Co un t1 4 )
. S o a ft e r c o nd uc t i ngthe a pp r o pr i ate unitana lys is, the offense l eve l f oral l co nd uct i s 3 3. A fte r su b tr ac tin g t h re e lev els for a c c ep ta n c e o f res p on sib il-20 N o. 09
- 1029 ity , see U. S
. S
. G. § 3 E1
. 1 , Eu b a nk s ’ c o mbi ne d o ffe ns e l eve l i s 3 0. Offe ns e l e v e l 3 0 a nd c r i mi na l h i s t o r y c a t e g o r y V y i e l ds a guid eli ne range of 151-1 8 8 m ont hs
. Th e d istri ct cou rt’s 1 9 2
- mon th g ui de l i ne sent e nc e i s thu s o ut s i de the a ppli cabl e r ange

— albe i t o nl yby f o urmonths
. And whi l e th e dist ric t co urt speci fi cal l y s tat ed that i t would have gi ven the s am e s entence ev en i fi t found restr ain t ra therthan abducti on i n C ou n ts 12 and 14, thi s di d not a ccount f or the e rr oneo us f our- l eve l enhancem ent foro ther w i se us i nga da ng e r o us wea po n un de r U. S
. S
. G. § 2 B3
. 1 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( D) i n Count 12. M or eov er, the dist ri ct c ourtdi d not provi de any re aso n f orgi vi ng a non- gui del i ne se ntence. See U nited Sta tes v. C a rter, 5 3 8 F
. 3d 784, 789 (7th Cir. 2008 ) ( “I fthe sente nce i m po se d i s o utsi de the gui del i nes r ange, the dist ri ct c ou rt m u st provi de a j usti fi cati on th at ex p lain s a n d su p p or ts th e m ag n itu d e o f th e v ar ian c e.” ) T h e r e f o re , bec au se th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s e rro rs in ca l cul at i ngthe gui del i ne r an g e m ayha ve a ffec te d the sente nce i m posed, the abov e e rr or s a re nothar m l ess .

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe re aso ns di scusse d above , we V ACATE the s en t e nc e a nd R EMA ND for re se n te n c in g c on sis te n t w ith th is o pi ni o n.

1- 28- 10