In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 14-2053

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DURYEA ROGERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

No. 13-CR-00159— Sarah Evans Barker, Judge.

ARGUED JANUARY 8, 2015 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 2015

Before BAUER, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

MANION, Circuit Judge. Duryea Rogers pleaded guilty to

conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery, armed bank

robbery, and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence

(in this case, a bank robbery). He challenges the district court’s

imposition of a two-level enhancement for carjacking under

U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(5). We affirm.
2 No. 14-2053

I. Background

On the morning of June 26, 2013, Duryea Rogers and Xavier

Hardy (as well as three other co-conspirators) set out to rob a

bank. To that end, they drove to the Community Bank in

Fishers, Indiana, parked in a lot across the street, and waited.

When the first bank employee arrived at just before 8 a.m.,

they drew their guns on her and forced her into the bank.

Under the direction of Rogers, the employee did everything

that she would normally do: she turned on lights, deactivated

the alarm, placed her purse on the counter, and unlocked the

front door. But she did not give the all-clear signal indicating

to other employees that it was safe to enter the bank. 

Rogers escorted the employee to the vault and ordered her

to open it but she could not. (To deter robberies, bank vaults

often cannot be opened by a single employee—but advance

deterrence relies on criminals knowing this and this group did

not.) The robbery was a failure: Rogers and Hardy never

obtained any cash from the bank. 

But they did not leave empty-handed. While Rogers and

the employee struggled with the vault, Hardy rummaged

through the employee’s purse, and took her car keys and

identification. The pair then directed the employee into the

break room, ordered her to lie on the floor, and zip-tied her

hands and feet together. Rogers and Hardy fled in the

employee’s Chevy Equinox, which was parked next to the

bank.The other co-conspirators fled in a minivan as well as the

Chevy Tahoe that Rogers and Hardy had driven to the bank

that morning. 

What the pair did not realize was that FBI agents were
No. 14-2053 3

outside the bank waiting for them; indeed, they had been

watching them the entire morning as another co-conspirator,

Deandre Armour, had been under surveillance for months for

suspicion of robbing other banks in Indiana. Various car chases

ensued.Ultimately, Rogers and Hardy deserted the Equinox in

a hotel parking lot and fled on foot. Hardy was arrested nearby

in possession of a .45 caliber pistol. Rogers was found by police

hiding in the hotel in a closet and underneath a laundry chute.

Officers also located several items discarded by Rogers,

including a .40 caliber handgun, two-way radio, and items of

clothing worn by him during the bank robbery. Finally, the

other three co-conspirators, including Armour, were also

arrested without incident. 

On April 28, 2014, Rogers pleaded guilty to conspiracy to

commit bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 371), armed bank robbery

(18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and 2113(d)), and knowingly using,

carrying, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to

a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)). The court

sentenced Rogers to 60 months’ imprisonment on each of

Counts One and Two (to be served concurrently), and 84

months on Count Three (to be served consecutively), followed

by 5 years of supervised release. 

Rogers’s plea agreement left open the issue of whether he

should receive the two-level enhancement for carjacking. The

probation officer recommended application of the enhancement, while Rogers argued that the behavior was already

factored into his sentence with the application of a two-level

enhancement for restraining the victim. Over Rogers’s objection, the district court concluded that the two-level enhancement should apply. Rogers appeals.
4 No. 14-2053

II. Analysis

We employ the usual dual standard, reviewing for clear

error the district court’s factual findings and de novo its

application of those facts to the Guidelines. United States v.

Medina, 695 F.3d 702, 704 (7th Cir. 2012). When interpreting the

Guidelines, we begin with the text of the provision and the

plain meaning of the words in the text. United States v. Hill, 645

F.3d 900, 907 (7th Cir. 2011). In addition to the actual language

of the Guidelines, we must also consider the Application Notes

as they are considered part of the Guidelines and not mere

commentary on them. United States v. Arnaout, 431 F.3d 994,

1001 (7th Cir. 2005). 

Section 2B3.1(b)(5) of the Guidelines provides for a twolevel enhancement for robberies involving carjacking, which

the Application Notes define as “the taking or attempted

taking of a motor vehicle from the person or presence of

another by force and violence or by intimidation.” § 2B3.1,

cmt. n. 1. Although Hardy, rather than Rogers, took the

employee’s keys, co-conspirator liability under

§ 1.B.1.3(a)(1)(B) is not at issue here; Rogers has not contested

it and the facts indicate that the theft was a reasonably foreseeable part of the overall bank robbery. 

At sentencing, Rogers focused on the “person and presence” requirement to argue that the Guideline did not apply to

“keyjacking” incidents where the keys, rather than the car, are

taken from the presence of the victim. On appeal, Rogers

refines his argument, contending that the facts do not support

a finding of carjacking because the keys were obtained merely

by rummaging through the employee’s purse, and not through
No. 14-2053 5

“force and violence or intimidation” as is required under the

Guideline. Notably, he argues this even as he concedes that the

bank robbery involved force or intimidation. The crucial

distinction, according to Rogers, is not whether the robbery

involved a measure of violence or intimidation, but whether

the keys were obtained through the “coerced relinquishment”

(his term) by the victim. 

The “person and presence” argument hasnotbeenaccepted

by any circuit that has examined it and is easily dispatched. In

holding that there is no distinction—other factors notwithstanding—between taking a victim’s car outright and taking a

victim’s keys as merely the first action in the seizure of her car,

we join our sister circuits who have examined this question in

the context of 18 U.S.C. § 2119. They are uniform in construing

the term “presence” broadly to include the ability to retain

control of the vehicle through possession of the keys. See, e.g.,

United States v. Savarese, 385 F.3d 15, 20 (1st Cir. 2004); United

States v. Soler, 759 F.3d 226, 235 (2d Cir. 2014); United States v.

Lake, 150 F.3d 269, 272–73 (3d Cir. 1998); United States v. Davis,

233 Fed. App’x. 292, 295 (4th Cir. 2007) (per curiam unpublished); United States v. Edwards, 231 F.3d 933, 937 (5th Cir.

2000); United States v. Casteel, 663 F.3d 1013, 1020–21 (8th Cir.

2011); United States v. Burns, 701 F.2d 840, 843 (9th Cir. 1983)

(per curiam); United States v. Brown, 200 F.3d 700, 705 (10th Cir.

1999).

Only the Sixth Circuit has considered directly the application of a sentencing enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(5) to similar

facts. In United States v. Boucha, 236 F.3d 768 (6th Cir. 2001), the

defendant forced an employee to surrender to him the keys to
6 No. 14-2053

her car during a robbery, which he used as his escape vehicle.

The defendant was convicted of bank robbery and the sentencing judge applied the two-level enhancement for carjacking.

The Sixth Circuit read the federal carjacking statute in light of

commonlawrobbery principles applicable to the enhancement

and found the broader interpretation of “person or presence”

from the statute to conform with the language and purpose of

the Sentencing Guidelines. Id. at 775–76. We agree and hold

that, for the purpose of § 2B3.1(b)(5), a defendant who takes a

victim’s keys by force orthreat of force, and who latertakes the

car (which is sufficiently proximate for the owner to access it),

may be sentenced as if he took the victim’s car in the presence

of the victim by force or threat of force.

Rogers’s second argument—that the keys were not obtained by “force and violence or by intimidation”—is equally

unavailing. To accept this argument, we would have to ignore

the basic fact of this case, namely that the bank employee was,

at all relevant times, acting under the orders of armed men.

The incident began with Rogers and Hardy accosting the

employee at the back door and drawing their weapons on her.

It ended with them leading her to the break room and ordering

her to lie on the floor, where they zip-tied her. In the interim,

she was in the presence of at least one of the robbers—and his

weapon—at all relevant times. These facts more than suffice to

establish that the keys were obtained through “force and

violence or by intimidation.” 
No. 14-2053 7

III. Conclusion 

The district court’s imposition of a two-level enhancement

to Rogers’s base offense level for bank robbery under the

carjacking enhancement of § 2B3.1(b)(5) is AFFIRMED.