Opinion ID: 1264920
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Imposition of the Abduction Guideline

Text: Finally, Simmons argues that before choosing to apply U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) (applying abduction enhancement if any person was abducted to facilitate commission of the offense) to his sentence, the district court should have made a specific finding that the abduction of Schmidt was foreseeable to Simmons. Simmons, as noted, could only be sentenced for the foreseeable conduct of his co-conspirators. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (A defendant's offense level, for sentencing purposes, shall be determined on the basis of, in the case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity ... all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of the [joint undertaking].). We review the adequacy of a district court's findings de novo. United States v. Thompson, 286 F.3d 950, 957 (7th Cir.2002). At sentencing, Simmons challenged Jackie Schmidt's role in the robbery and argued that she was a conspirator. If she was, he argued, there could be no application of the abduction guideline. The district court found that the abduction did take place. As the district court noted at sentencing, the strongest evidence that Schmidt was not in on the plan at the time that she was abducted is the timing. In other words, had Schmidt been involved, Campbell would not have had to sit and wait at her apartment for three hours, while Mann drove the streets of Cedarburg, to wait for Schmidt's co-worker to arrive at the bank. Simmons argues now that this finding is not sufficient because the district court did not specifically declare that Schmidt's abduction was foreseeable to Simmons. But, all the evidence at trial showed that Simmons was involved in the second plan, the one in which the robbers agreed to abduct Schmidt. Finding that an actual abduction took place necessarily involved a finding that such an abduction was foreseeable, and in fact, planned by Simmons. The judge's reliance on the timing reinforces this point. The timing was a part of the original plan to which Mann, Simmons, and Campbell had agreed. Remember, Simmons was unexpectedly unavailable at the agreed-upon time to rob the bank because of baby-sitting duties. Therefore, in addition to supporting the notion that the abduction took place, the evidence of the botched timing also supports the notion that the abduction was foreseeable to Simmons. The application of this enhancement was, therefore, proper.