United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-30114

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Richard Sansbury, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:19-CR-145-1

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Smith, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Kurt D. Engelhardt, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Richard Sansbury (“Sansbury”) appeals the four-level 

sentencing enhancement for abduction to his base offense level under 

U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A). For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM

the district court’s judgment. 

I. Background

In June 2019, Sansbury and his co-defendant Alan Parson (“Parson”) 

entered a CVS pharmacy through the store’s front doors to commit an armed 

robbery. Sansbury forced the cashier from the cashier area at the front of the 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 1, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-30114 Document: 00516733396 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/01/2023
No. 22-30114

2

store into the restroom, zip-tied his hands together, and left him there during 

the robbery. The store manager observed the robbery from within a locked 

office and called the police. While Sansbury incapacitated the cashier in the

restroom, Parson went to the pharmacy, placed the pharmacist on the ground 

at gunpoint, and zip-tied his feet together. Sansbury and Parson then began 

removing narcotics, including controlled substances, from behind the 

pharmacy counter and putting them into a black bag. 

When police officers arrived, they encountered Sansbury and Parson 

attempting to exit the CVS. Sansbury and Parson retreated into the store

while the officers sought cover outside the front door and in the parking lot. 

Sansbury and Parson then ran out of the store as they shot at the police 

officers. One police officer sustained a gunshot wound to the shoulder area. 

Parson sustained multiple gunshot wounds and was arrested immediately 

following the robbery. Sansbury sustained a gunshot wound to his leg and was 

arrested several hours later, hiding in the backyard of a nearby house. 

II. Procedural History

Sansbury, pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to several charges 

related to the robbery.1 The presentence report (“PSR”) provided that the 

base offense level for the robbery offenses was 20 under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(a). 

In addition to several other enhancements not at issue on appeal, Sansbury 

received a four-level enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) for physically 

abducting a person “to facilitate the commission of the offense or to facilitate 

escape” because he forced the cashier into the restroom and zip-tied his 

hands together. 

_____________________

1 Sansbury pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit a robbery involving controlled 

substances, committing a robbery involving controlled substances, and discharging a 

firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. 

Case: 22-30114 Document: 00516733396 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/01/2023
No. 22-30114

3

Defense counsel filed a written objection to the abduction 

enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A), arguing that Sansbury did not move 

the cashier from place to place and that the movement of the cashier did not 

enable him to commit the crime or facilitate his escape. The Government 

responded that the forced physical movement of a victim from one location

to another inside of the store constituted an abduction and that it enabled the 

robbers to commit the crime by preventing the victim from contacting police 

officers or otherwise preventing the robbery from occurring, and it facilitated 

the robbers’ escape from the store.

At the sentencing hearing, Sansbury renewed his objection to the 

§ 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) enhancement. The district court overruled his objection, 

finding that under the facts of the case, Sansbury abducted the victim within 

the meaning of the Guidelines when he forced the victim to relocate from the 

cashier area to the bathroom and zip-tied the victim’s hands. The district 

court further found that the abduction facilitated the commission of the 

offense and the escape as it prevented the cashier from contacting law 

enforcement officers or otherwise preventing the robbery from occurring. 

Sansbury was sentenced to a total of 241 months of imprisonment. Sansbury 

timely appealed. 

III. Legal Standard 

Sentences are reviewed for reasonableness in light of the sentencing 

factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

This court reviews the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing 

Guidelines de novo. United States v. Buck, 847 F.3d 267, 276 (5th Cir. 2017).

The district court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error. United 

States v. Gomez-Valle, 828 F.3d 324, 327 (5th Cir. 2016). “A factual finding 

is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the record read as a whole.” 

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Case: 22-30114 Document: 00516733396 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/01/2023
No. 22-30114

4

IV. Discussion

The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a four-level enhancement “[i]f 

any person was abducted to facilitate the commission of the offense or to 

facilitate escape[.]” § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A). “Abducted” means that “a victim was 

forced to accompany an offender to a different location.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, 

cmt. (n.1(A)); see § 2B3.1, cmt. (n.1). The commentary states, “[f]or 

example, a bank robber’s forcing a bank teller from the bank into a getaway 

car would constitute an abduction.” § 1B1.1, cmt. (n.1(A)). 

Sansbury contends that the district court erred in applying the 

abduction sentencing enhancement for three reasons. First, Sansbury argues

that he “did not force the victim to ‘accompany’ him anywhere” and that 

forcing the cashier from the cashier area to the restroom “does not qualify as 

the type of ‘forced accompaniment’ required by the abduction 

enhancement.” We disagree. Sansbury pointed a gun at the cashier and 

forced him to walk with Sansbury from the cashier area to the restroom, 

where Sansbury zip-tied the cashier’s hands. Thus, Sansbury forced the 

cashier to accompany him. 

Second, Sansbury challenges the district court’s determination that 

the “different location” requirement of § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) was satisfied when 

he moved the cashier to the bathroom. This circuit has repeatedly held that 

“the term ‘different location’ should be interpreted flexibly on a case by case 

basis.” United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 469, 472 (5th Cir. 2010). Moreover, 

the abduction enhancement is proper “even though the victim remained 

within a single building.” Id. at 474. Here, Sansbury forced the cashier from 

the cashier’s area at the front of the store to the restroom. Accordingly, the 

different location requirement was also satisfied. 

Third, Sansbury argues that moving the cashier to the restroom did 

not facilitate or play a role in the commission of the robbery or his escape. We 

Case: 22-30114 Document: 00516733396 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/01/2023
No. 22-30114

5

are unconvinced. Sansbury forced the cashier to the restroom and then ziptied him there so he would not interfere with the robbery or call the police. 

This incapacitation of the cashier prevented the cashier from interfering in 

or disrupting the robbery, thereby facilitating the commission of the offense.

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in imposing the 

abduction enhancement. 

V. Conclusion

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 22-30114 Document: 00516733396 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/01/2023