Opinion ID: 155028
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inapplicability of the Carjacking Enhancement Claim

Text: 16 Gutierrez's base offense level of 20, for robbery, was increased by 2 levels because the offense involved a carjacking. See U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(1)(B). Carjacking, as defined in the United States Sentencing Guidelines, means the taking or attempted taking of a motor vehicle from the person or presence of another by force and violence or by intimidation. U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1, app. note 1. Gutierrez argues that this 2 level enhancement was inappropriate because he never took, nor did he attempt to take, the vehicle from the defendant. 17 We have rejected the crux of Gutierrez's argument in United States v. Payne, 83 F.3d 346 (10th Cir.1996). In Payne, we addressed the statutory crime of carjacking, which at that time defined a carjacker, in relevant part, as one who, possessing a firearm ..., takes a motor vehicle ... from the person or presence of another by force and violence, or by intimidation, or attempts to do so. 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (as enacted 1992) (amended 1994 and 1996). In Payne, the convicted carjacker never separated, nor attempted to separate, the car from its owner; rather, he purposively kept the car owner with him in the car in order to later force the owner to make cash withdrawals with an ATM card. Id. at 347. We upheld the defendant's conviction after determining that carjacking is a general intent crime analogous to robbery, and thus, an intent to permanently deprive a victim of a motor vehicle is not required by the 'taking' element. Id. at 347 (citing United States v. Moore, 73 F.3d 666, 669 (6th Cir.1996)). 18 Because the sentencing guideline definition for carjacking is virtually identical to the carjacker definition analyzed in Payne, we believe that Payne has considered Gutierrez's argument, and rejected it. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's use of the carjacking enhancement. 19