## 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. 10

- 1750 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. M ARTY T A Y L OR, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin

. No . 09- cr -119-bb c- 01

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Judge
.
A RG UE D A UGUS T 4, 2010

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 2, 2010

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NER, an d H A MI L T ON, Circ uit Ju dg es . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . T he de f endantwa s c ha r g e d, alo n g w ith A r l a n d is Iss ac , w ith arm ed ba n k ro b b er y in vi ol ati on of 18 U

. S. C. §§ 2113 ( a) , ( d). H e p lea d ed gui l ty an d wa s s e nt e nc e d t o 1 1 0 mo nths i n pr i s o n. ( I s s a c , n ot an appel l ant i n thi s ca se, al so ple aded gui l ty and w as sente nced to 168 m onths. ) The questi on pre sente d by the a pp e a l i s whe the r the di s t r i c t j ud g e wa s c o r r e c tto add two l eve l s t o the defendant’s bas e o ff ense l eve l2 N o. 10

- 1750 pur su an t to s ec ti o n 2 B3. 1(b) ( 4) ( B) o fthe fede r als en tenci ng gui del i nes. That sect i on re quir es the enhancem ent i fa pers on i s “ physi cal l y r est ra i ned to f aci l i tat e the c om m i ssi on o fthe off ense [ ofr obbery ] o r to f aci l i tat e esca pe. ” The ter m “physi cal l y re str ai ned” i s defi n ed as “the f o r cibl e r es tr ai nt of the v i ct i m s ucha s byb eing ti ed, bound, or l ock ed up.” U

. S. S. G. § 1B1.1, ap pli cation not e 1 (K ). Th e enh an cem en t raised th e d efend an t’s gui del i nes s entenci ng r ange f rom 92

- 115 m onths to 110- 13 7mo nths

. ( Th e s e r a ng e s inc l ud e a s i x- l e v e l i nc r e ase a b o v e the de f e nd a nt ’ s b a s e o ff e ns e l e v e l b e c a us e h e h ad u s e d a g u n i n t he r o b b e r y . ) T h e j u d g e th u s g a v e h i m a se nt en ce tha t was a t th e bo tt o m o f th e ra nge tha t th e enhancem ent f orphysi calr est ra i ni ng lifted hi m i nto and bel ow the m axi m um witho ut the enhancem ent. T h e d e f e n d a n ta n d I s s a c h a d e n t e r e d th e b a n kwi th t wo o th ermen. W i ththe oth ert wo g ua r di ngthe l o bb y , the defe nd ant o rder ed a t eller at gunpoi nt to o pen her m oney drawer whil e I ssa c w ent to the vaul t a t the bac k o f the b ank where anothe r tel l erwas sta nd i ng , whom I ssa c o r d e r e d a tg u n p o i n tt o g e td o wno n he r k n e e s . He tu g g ed he r b ac kt o a s ta ndi ngpo si ti o n a nd wi th o ne ha nd ho l di nga g unp o i nt e d a th e r b a c ka nd the o the r p l aced o n the b ac ko fhe r ne cko r he ad l ed her fr o m the vaul t t o her tel l er ’ s pos i ti on, sho ved her, f ace dow n, to th e fl o o r, and h el d he r the r e. The r o bb er s l o o te d the t e l l e r s ’ mo ne y dr a we r s a nd fl e d. The e nha nc ementf o r phy si ca l l y r es tr ai ni ngthe s ec o nd tel l eri n or der t o f aci l i tat e the r obbe rywas base d n ot o n an y th i ngthe de f en dan t ha d do ne b utr athe r o n I ssac ’sN o. 10

- 1750 3 conduct, wh i ch the j ud ge deem ed “rel evantco nd uct” of the defe nd ant. Se e U

. S. S. G. § 1B1. 3( a) ( 1) ( B ). Th at ru lin g is n ot qu es tio n ed bu t t h e jud ge ’s re as on in g in im p os in g t h e e n h an c em en t is . Sh e s a i d : “ I’m n ot atall c onvinced that bei ng m ove d a t the poi nt of a gun is a ll thatdi ff er en t i n i m pac t, e ff ec t o n the v i ct i m [ , ] a s be i ng ti ed, bo und o r l ock ed up. The perso n i s phys icall y r est r a i ne d fr o m m o v i ngi n a nydi r e c t i o n b utthe di r e c ti on i n whi chthe r o bb erwant s he r to go. Now i t’ s tr ue the g un wa s no t po i nt ed di r ec tl y a t he r face .

. . , b utthe gun w as ther e. ” The j ud ge add ed that I ssa c had “pushed [th e tel l er ] to the gr ound and pushed [her ] in the sm all of her back to m ake su re she w as on the grou nd

. . . . [ H ]e wa l k e d h e r i n t o th e o th e r r o o m w h i l e h o l d i n ga fi r e a r m. I thi nk tha t k i nd o f a c t i v i t y , mov i ng f r o m p l ace to pla ce . . . wh er e the fi re ar m i s be i ng hel d cl ear l y t o be used on y ou i fyo u m ake the w ro ng m ove, . . . co m pli es w ith th e d efin itio n of forc ible res tr ain t o f a vic tim .” Even ifI ss ac ’ s co nduc t di dn’ t sa ti sfy the g ui del i ne d efin itio n of p h ys ica l res tr ain t, if t h e jud ge rea so n ab ly th o ug hti t a s evi l a s, s ay, ha ndcu ffi ngthe t el l era nd loc kin g h er in t h e v au lt

— c on d u c t t h at cle ar ly w ou ld sat i sfy the defi ni ti on

— she c oul d increas e the defen d an t’s se n te n c e w i t h ou t w or ry in g a b ou t t h e d efin iti on. A se ntenci ng j ud ge i n thi s pos t- B o o k erera i s e nti tl ed to enhan ce a se ntence w hethero r not the t echni calr equi r ement s o fth e g ui del i ne s ar e m et
. Buts i nc e th e j udg e bas ed he r s en te nc e i ns te ad o n h erunde r st an di ng o fthe p hy s i c a l

- r e s t r a i ntgui de l i ne we mus t d e c i de w hetherthatundersta nd i ng was cor re ct.4 N o. 10

- 1750 H ad sh e ba se d the e nha nc ementno t o n I ss ac ’ s ha vi ng po i nt ed hi s g un a t th e te l l ert o c o nt r o l he r m ove m en t but o n hi s hav i n g shove d and d ra gge d orpushed her t o th e fl o o r a n d h e l d h e r d o wn, th e r e wo u l d b e n o i ss ue for ap p ea l ; th at w ou ld be “p h ys ica lly re st ra in in g” in ev en th e n ar ro w es t s en se of th e t er m . U nite d State s v. O ld C hief , 5 71 F .3d 8 98 , 901 (9t h C ir. 20 09 ); U ni t e d St at e s v. O s s ai, 485 F. 3d 25, 32 ( 1stCi r. 200 7); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fo ppe, 99 3 F

. 2 d 1 4 4 4 , 1 4 4 8 , 1 4 5 2

- 5 3 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 9 3 )

. B u ti n s t e a d s he em ph as ize d the use o fthe gun to f or ce c om pli ance with I ss ac ’ s co m m an d tha t th e te l l erg o fr o m the v au l t to the tel l erar ea. The defendant ar gues that thre at eni ng a p er so n w ith a gu n is n ot “p h ys ica lly re st ra in in g” ev en if the purpose i s t o com pel a perso n to m ove o r not m ove as the r obbe r com m ands. H e cl ai m s that B ega y v . U nited Sta tes , 553 U

. S. 137 (2008), hol ds that a s tatute o r re gul ati on that pr ovi des a l i st o fe xa m p les to de fi ne a c r i m e ca nno t be a ppl i ed to a ny beh a v i o r tha ti s n o tr e l e v a nt l y i de nt i c a l t o the e xa mpl es. I n the c as e o fthe “ phy si ca l l y r es tr ai ni ng ” se nt en ci ng g ui del i ne the l i st is “t i ed, b o und, o r l o ck ed up, ” an d the defendant ar gues that si nce al l the se are f or m s o f phy si ca l l y p re ve nt i ngo r l i m i tingmove m en t, thr ea te ni ng a pe r s o n c a n n o t fi t wi th i n th e g u i d e l i n e . B ut he fl i nc he s whe n i t c o mes t o a r o b b e r ’ s s pr a y i ng mac e o n a per so n t o f ac il itat e th e r o bb er ’ s es ca pe, a s i n U nited Sta t e s v. Rob i ns on , 20 F. 3d 270, 27 9 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) , wh i ch he l d th e ac t to be a f o r m o f “ph y si ca l l y r es tr ai ni ng ” th e vi cti m . H e thi nks Robi ns on m ay survi ve Bega y ; he s ays th at“ spr ay in gmace i s ar g uabl y c o ns i st en t wi thb eing
‘ ti ed, b o und o r l o ck ed up’ i ns o f ara s i t cr ea te s a r estra i ntN o. 10

- 1750 5 that sta ys i n pla ce a fterthe ro bber h as left

. ” But that can’ t be r i ght; i t would m ean t h at i fthe ro bber had hand cuffed a t el l erbut re m ove d the handcuff s o n hi s w ay ou t ( m aybe he want ed th em f o r hi s ne xtb an k r o bb er y ) , he c o ul d no t be g i ve n the s en te nc i ng e nha nc ementf o r phy si ca l l y r es tr ai ni nga pe r so n. W ha t i s tr ue is t ha t a st atut o r y l i sto fe xa m pl es o fc o nducttha t v iol at es the s ta tu te c anb e a cl ue t o the sta t ut e ’ s i nt e nd e d s c o pe ; tha ti s the c o r e o fg o o d s ense i n the “cano n ofco nstr ucti on” kn own as ei usdem gene ri s (L at in for “o f th e sam e kin d ,” in law L at i n u s u ally s pe l l e d ej usdem g en er is )

. The exam ple s a re a substi tute f or or s u p p lem en t t o a d efin itio n . Bega ywas i nterpreting a sta tute that defi ned as a vi ol ent fel ony an act or se r i es o fa ct s th atc o ns ti tu te “ bur g l ar y , a r so n, o r e xto r ti o n, i nv o l ve s us e o fe xpl o si ve s, o r o th er wi se i nvol ves conduct thatpre sents a ser i ous pot enti alr i sk of p h ys ica l inju r y t o a n ot h er .” 18 U .S.C . § 92 4(e )(2) (B )(ii) ( emphasi s adde d)

. The e xa m pl es pr o vi ded he l p i n i nter preti n g “c onduct that prese nts a se ri ous pot enti alr i sk ofphysi c al inj ury to anothe r. ” The Courthel d that dr i vi ng u nde r the i nfl ue nc e, a l th o ug h a da ng er o us ac tiv ity , w as n ot w ith in th e s ta tu te ’s s c op e b ec au se it l acked the e sse nti alchar acte r ofthe l i ste d cri m es, wh i ch the Cour t desc ribed as “purposeful, vi ol ent, and agg re ssi ve” conduct. 55 3 U.S

. at14 4- 45. The e ss en ti alc ha r ac te r o f con d uct th ati s su bj ec t to the p h ys ica l-re st ra in t gu id elin e (w h ich d efin es “p h ys ica lly re st ra in in g” on ly ta u to log ica lly, as “fo rc ible res tr ain t” ) is depri vi ng a perso n ofhi s fre edom o fphysi calm ove m ent,6 N o. 10

- 1750 U nited Sta tes v. O ld C hief , sup ra , 571 F.3d at90 1; U nited State s v. P le nty, 335 F .3 d 73 2, 73 6 (8 th C ir. 20 03 ); U nited Sta tes v. C hec o ra , 175 F.3d 78 2, 79 1 (1 0t h C ir. 19 99 ), an d th is can be acc om pli shed by m ea n s otherthan cre ati ng a physi calbar ri erto m ove m ent. H i tti ng a perso n ove r the h e a d wi th a t wo -b y - f o urwi l l ma k e h i m i nc a pab l e, for a ti m e a t l ea st, of an y p h ys ica l m ov em en t. B u t it w on’ t c reate a physi calbar ri er, as a l ock ed doordoes ; nothi ng but hi s be i ng unconsci ous pr eve nts h im fro m m o v i n g . B u t s o w h a t ? T h e r e i s a d i ff e r e n c e , f r o m a p e n a l s t a n d p o i n t, b e t we e n d e l ib e r a t e l y b u r n i n gd o wn a ho us e an d dr i vi ngwhi l e drun k; b utwhati s th e pen o l o g i c a l l y r e l e v a nt di ff e r e nc e b e t we e n l o c k i ng a tel l eri n a v aul t, on the one hand, and knoc ki ng herse nsel ess ( i fwe i gnor e the i njur y in the l att ercas e, wh i ch w oul d ear n the ass ai l ant a n ad d i ti onalenhancem ent, U

. S. S. G

. § 2 B 3 .1(b)(3) )

— orpoi nti ng a gun at her

— o n the o the r h a nd ? The diffe rence, tho ugh i t has penol ogi calr el evance o nl y b y v i r tu e o fthe s tr uctur e o f th e g ui del i ne s, i s th e si xl ev ele nha nc ementtha t the d ef en dan t r ec ei ve d f o r us i ng a g un. W hen he poi nted hi s g un at a te l l eran d t old her to open herm oney drawer, he e ff ecti vel y pr eve nted her f r o m r es po ndi ngtha t sh e’ d b e ha ppy t o d o t ha t i n a m om ent b ut fi rs t s he’ d l i ke to go outsi de f or a sm oke

. Bu t i t i s not sugge ste d that si nce he preve n te d h er f ro m m ovi ng, as she doubtl ess would have w an ted to d o, he s ho ul d g etthe t wo- l ev elphy si ca l

- r es tr ai nte nhancem ent o n to p ofthe si x-le vel enhancem ent f or us e o fa gun . Fo r tha t woul d m ak e th e enha nc ement avai l abl e in eve ryr obbe rycas e, si nce the r obbe r m ustN o. 10

- 1750 7

a l wa y s ma k e h i s v i c t i m sta y s t i l l wh i l e b e i ngr o b b e d. B u t a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s h a r e d b y a l l i n s t a n c e s o fa c r i me i s r efl ec te d in th e b as e o ff en se l ev elf o r the c r i m e an d ther ef or e i s unavai l abl e f oruse as an enhancem ent. U nited Sta t e s v. R o dg ers , 610 F.3d 975 , 978 (7th C ir. 2 01 0); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Se nn , 1 2 9 F

. 3 d 8 8 6 , 8 9 7( 7th C ir. 19 97 ); U nited St a t e s v. R eese, 2 F. 3d 870, 895 (9th Cir. 19 93 ); U nite d State s v. B utt, 955 F.2 d 7 7, 8 8-89 (1st Cir. 19 92 )

. Tha t woul d b e do ubl e co unt i ng . W ha t th eni s th e di ff er en ce b etwee n the de fe nda nt ’ s us e o fthe g un a nd Iss ac ’ s u se , th e la tt er be in g t h e b as is for th e “ p h ys ica lly re str ai ni ng” e nhancem ent? W e e xam i ne thatquesti on thro ugh the l ens pr ovi ded b y t w o of o u r p re vio u s d ec isio n s. T h e firs t, U nite d Sta tes v. D oubet, 9 69 F. 2d 341, 34 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92) , abr oga ted o n unrel ate d g ro und s by U ni t e d S t at e s v. D unn igan , 507 U

. S. 87 ( 1993 ) , sta tes that “her ding vi cti m s i nto a d efined ar ea ” i s no t “ph y si ca l l y r es tr ai ni ng ” th em i fa l l tha t’s i nv o l ve d i s “s i m pl y di r ect i ngthe m t o o ne s i de o fthe roo m an d admoni sh i ng th em no t to m o ve . . . . W ere it ot h er w ise , en h an c em e n t w ou ld be w ar ra n te d virt u ally eve r y t i me a n a r med r o b b e r e nt e r e d a b a nk, f o r a thr eat not to m ove i s i m pli ci t in th e ver y nature ofar m ed ro bb er y.” (N or d oe s s u c h “h er d in g” a m o u n t t o “ ab d u c tio n,” U ni t ed Sta te s v. Eub anks , 593 F.3d 645 , 652-54 (7th C ir. 2010) , wh i ch w hen done t o f aci l i tat e the o ff ense or esca pe gi ves ri se to an add i ti onal f our- l eve l enhancem en t. U. S

. S

. G. § 2 B3. 1(b) ( 4) ( A ). ) Y eti n D o ubet we up hel d the e nhancem ent b ecause the defe nd ant had or dered the te l l er s t o go i nto a ba thro om an d t old them th at if t h e y tri ed to l eave he’d blow their head s off

— a8 N o. 10

- 1750 cred ibl e threa t beca us e h e w a s carrying a saw ed -off sh otgun. Thi s was “ he r di ng, ” butwenta s te p b ey o nd “s im p ly d ire c tin g.” Inth e s ec on d ca se , U nited S t a t e s v. C a rter, 41 0 F

. 3d 942, 95 4 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ), afte r re p ea tin g t h e q u a l i f ica tio n in D o ubet we uphe l d the phy si ca l

- r es tr ai nte nha nc ement w he r e th e d efend an t, “in th e im m ed iate prese nc e of [a tel l er ] , f ocuse d his gun o n her and then, sust ai ni ng tha t f ocus, m ove d her out ofthe ban k’s vaultto herdrawer aga i nst he r w i l l

. ” That i s l i ke our case ( m i nus the physi cal c o nt a c t ) ; i tg o e s b e y o nd D o ubet by no t r equir ing co nfi nem ent. C a rtergov erns o ur c as e. I t ac co r ds wi ththe de ci si o ns i n a l l the c o m par ab l e ca ses thatwe’ ve f o und i n the o th er co u rt s o f ap p ea ls, U ni t e d S t at e s v. St e ve ns , 58 0 F.3 d 71 8 (8 t h C ir. 20 09 ); U nited Sta tes v. M iera , 53 9 F

. 3d 12 32 , 1 23 5-3 6 (10 th C ir. 20 08 ); U ni t e d St at e s v. O s s ai, sup ra , 48 5 F .3d at32 ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wi l s on , 19 8 F

. 3d 467, 472 ( 4th C ir. 19 99 ); U nited Sta tes v. C o pen ha ver, 185 F. 3d 178, 18 2- 83 (3d C ir. 1 99 9); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ne l s on , 13 7 F

. 3d 1094 , 11 12 (9t h C ir. 19 98 ); U nited Sta tes v. Jon es , 32 F. 3d 1512, 15 19 ( 11 thCi r . 1 99 4) , a nd we co ns i deri t so und a nd dec li ne th e d efend an t’s i nv itation to overrule it. W he th er a poi nted gun i s use d to m ove a perso n in to an unloc ked ro om and ke ep hi m th er e, or used to m ove a perso n f r o m o ne pa r t o fthe r o bb ery s cene to a no th er, the perso n’s fre edom o fm ove m ent i s r est ra i ned as e ff ecti ve l y a s bys ho vi ngo r dr ag g i nghi m i nto a ro o m a nd l ock i ng the door . T h e type o fco nd uct f ound in thi s ca se i s a fe a t ur e o fma nyr o b b e r i e s b utn ot al l ; g o e s a s t e p,N o. 10

- 1750 9 albei t a m odest one, bey ond th e m er e a i m i ng o fa gun at a s t a t i o n a r y r o b b e r y vi c t i m ( U nited Sta tes v. M iera , sup ra , 539 F. 3d at 1236 , g av e, as an exam ple o fa bank ro bber w ho wo ul d no t be s ubj ec t to the e nha nc ement, o ne wh o “ s i mpl y wa l k e d u p t o th e t e l l e r ’ s s t a t i o n wi th a g un visibl e in his w aistba n d and de m an d ed m one y”); an d pr o vi des a n a fortio rij usti fi cation f orthe m odest sente nci ng enhancem ent in thi s ca se

— f orr em em berthat th e s en te n c e t h e ju d g e im p os ed w as w ith in w h at w ou ld have been the guid eli nes r ange w i thout the e nhancem ent. The di sti ncti ons a m ong the c ase s o fr est ra i nt by gun ar e s o fi ne, however, thatse ntenci ng j ud ges m i ght b e bett eradvise d to as ses s a r obbe rydefendant’s co nd uct i n s uchc as es wi th o utr el i an ce o n the phy si ca l

- r es tr ai nt g ui del i ne , a s we s ai d e arli er the j udg e co ul d ha ve do ne i n thi s ca se. One s m al l matt err emains t o b e co ns i der ed. The j ud ge or dered the defendant to part i ci pate in the I nm ate Fi nanci alResp onsibi l i ty Pro gr am , 28 C. F. R. § 545. 10. That w as er ro r; part i ci pati on i s v ol untary. U n i ted S ta tes v. M uno z , 610 F.3d 98 9, 9 9 7 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 10 ); U nited Sta tes v. Boyd, 608 F.3d 3 3 1 , 33 5 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); U nited Sta tes v. Le m oi ne, 546 F.3d 104 2, 1047 ( 9th Cir. 2008). The j u d gm ent i s m odi fi ed acco rdi ngl y, and as m od ified is A FFI RMED
.

9- 2- 10