United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-2097

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of South Dakota.

*

Bernard Ray Young, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 5, 2002

Filed: November 12, 2002

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Bernard Ray Young, an Indian, pleaded guilty to raping an Indian woman on

the Rosebud Indian Reservation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2241(a)(1), and

2246(2) (2000). When a woman Young knew walked past, Young called after her

and began walking with her down the road. Young then forcibly pulled the woman

into a friend’s empty house, held her down, and raped her. Young was arrested,

charged with sexual assault, and jailed on the same day. A few hours later, the jailor

asked Young to change into jail clothes and place his clothes in a bag. When the

jailor returned from assisting with a disturbance, Young’s undershorts were in a
*

The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

-2-

bucket containing bleach and water. At sentencing, the district court*

 applied a fourlevel enhancement because Young abducted the victim, and a two-level enhancement

for obstruction of justice because Young placed his undershorts in the bleach

solution. Young appeals his sentence. Having reviewed the district court’s findings

of fact for clear error and application of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual de

novo, we affirm. United States v. Scolaro, 299 F.3d 956, 957 (8th Cir. 2002). 

We reject Young’s contention that he did not abduct his victim when he pulled

her inside the empty house. We find no error with the district court’s findings that

Young forced his victim inside the house, that Young knew the victim was resisting

and did not want to go inside, and that moving the victim increased the likelihood that

she would be unable to call for help and would be injured. Like the district court, we

conclude Young moved his victim from one location outside the house to another

location inside the house. Moving a victim from one location to another meets the

definition of abduction, thus the four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G.

§ 2A3.1(b)(5) properly applies. United States v. Kills In Water, 293 F.3d 432, 436-37

(8th Cir. 2002); United States v. Saknikent, 30 F.3d 1012, 1013-14 (8th Cir. 1994).

We also reject Young’s contention that he did not willfully obstruct justice by

placing his undershorts in the bleach solution, damaging possible evidence of the

sexual crime. Young argues his undershorts accidentally fell into the solution, and

due to his extensive use of alcohol and drugs that day, Young did not have the

mentality willfully to destroy evidence. The district court, however, found Young

had been at the jail for some time, so the destruction of evidence did not occur at the

same time as arrest, Young knew he was arrested for a sexual crime, and Young

willfully placed his undershorts in the bleach solution in an attempt to destroy any

evidence the undershorts may have contained. We find no error in these factual
-3-

findings and agree with the district court that U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 enhancement for

obstruction of justice applies.

We thus affirm Young’s sentence.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.