Opinion ID: 3040423
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Five-Level Enhancement

Text: We must address two principal issues with respect to the five-level enhancement for possessing a firearm during the bank robbery: first, whether the district judge applied the cor- rect standard of proof, and second whether, under the correct standard of proof, there was sufficient evidence to warrant the enhancement. The second issue requires a determination of, inter alia, the point at which Pike’s robbery of the Wells Fargo branch office ended, and whether he possessed the gun for purposes of the enhancement prior to that time. Standard of Proof [1] The ordinary standard of proof for factual findings underlying sentencing enhancements is preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Riley, 335 F.3d 919, 925 (9th 2 Pike did not contest the two-level enhancement for taking the property of a financial institution. 696 UNITED STATES v. PIKE Cir. 2003). We have held, however, that there are certain circumstances in which a clear and convincing standard is appropriate, such as where the enhancement would have “ ‘an extremely disproportionate effect’ ” on the sentence. United States v. Hopper, 177 F.3d 824, 832-33 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Restrepo, 946 F.2d 654, 659 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc)); see also Riley, 335 F.3d at 925; United States v. Jordan, 256 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2001). There is no “bright-line” rule in the Ninth Circuit governing the application of the extremely disproportionate effect test; rather, courts look to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the test is met. See Jordan, 256 F.3d at 928. We have identified six factors that should be considered: (1) whether the enhanced sentence falls within the maximum sentence for the crime alleged in the indictment; (2) whether the enhanced sentence negates the presumption of innocence or the burden of proof for the alleged crime; (3) whether the facts offered in support of the enhancement create new offenses requiring separate punishment; (4) whether the increase in sentence is based upon the extent of conspiracy; (5) whether the increase in number of offense levels is less than or equal to four; and (6) whether the length of the enhanced sentence more than doubles the length of the sentence authorized by the initial Guidelines range “in a case where the defendant would otherwise have received a relatively short sentence.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). [2] Here, the district court failed to consider the totality of the circumstances in holding the government to a clear and convincing standard of proof. Rather, it concluded that a heightened burden was warranted merely because possession of a gun requires a five-level enhancement under § 2B3.1(b) (2)(C): “On the five-level enhancement, the burden is at least clear and convincing on the part of the Government, since it is a five-level enhancement . . . .” In deeming the fact of a five-level enhancement, standing alone, to be controlling, and in failing to consider the totality of the circumstances, the district court erred. See id. (holding that, in determining whether UNITED STATES v. PIKE 697 to apply a heightened standard at sentencing, “we have looked at the ‘totality of the circumstances,’ without considering any one factor as dispositive”). The next question is whether the district court’s error was harmless. In other words, under the totality of the circumstances, did the five-level enhancement have an extremely disproportionate effect on Pike’s sentence? We conclude that it did not. [3] The parties agree that only two of the Valensia factors may be relevant: (1) whether the increase in offense level is less than or equal to four, and (2) whether the length of the enhanced sentence is more than double the length of the sentence recommended by the initial Guidelines range. With respect to the first issue, it is clear that a five-level increase is greater than a four-level increase. The question is whether the second factor applies. Absent the five-level enhancement, Pike’s sentencing range is fifty-seven to seventy-one months. A five-level enhancement would result, however, in a sentencing range of 92 to 115 months. Pike argues that the second Valensia factor is met because the high point of the enhanced range is more than double the low point of the nonenhanced range. Although that may be true, the comparison urged by Pike is incomplete. Critically, in cases in which we have considered whether a sentence would be doubled due to a contested enhancement, we have compared both the respective high and low points of the relevant Guidelines ranges. See, e.g., Riley, 335 F.3d at 927 (holding that a range of fortyone to fifty-one months was not more than double a range of twenty-four to thirty months); Jordan, 256 F.3d at 929; United States v. Mezas de Jesus, 217 F.3d 638, 643 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, a comparison of the low and high points of the two Guidelines ranges — fifty-seven to seventy-one months, and 92 to 115 months — reveals that the enhanced range is not more than double the non-enhanced range. [4] Accordingly, the only Valensia factor that favors Pike is the one considered by the district court — the enhancement 698 UNITED STATES v. PIKE resulted in an increase of more than four in his offense level. As the government argues, we have never in any opinion required a heightened standard of proof solely upon the basis of an enhancement of more than four levels. See, e.g., United States v. Munoz, 233 F.3d 1117, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (ruling that a nine-level enhancement that more than doubled the applicable Guidelines range warranted a heightened standard); Hopper, 177 F.3d at 833 (holding that a seven-level enhancement that resulted in more than doubling the Guidelines range had an extremely disproportionate effect); but see Riley, 335 F.3d at 927 (four-level enhancement did not trigger clear and convincing standard where Guidelines range did not double). Nor, after considering the length of the Guidelines ranges, both independently and comparatively, as well as the other relevant circumstances, do we believe that this is an appropriate case in which to do so. Rather, we conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances, the five-level enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) did not warrant a heightened standard of proof at sentencing in this case. The enhancement would not have an extremely disproportionate effect on Pike’s sentence and, thus, the district court erred in holding the government to a clear and convincing burden. Possession of a Firearm [5] Because we hold that the district court applied an incorrect standard of proof with respect to the five-level enhancement, we remand for reconsideration the question whether the government met its burden on that issue. On remand, the district court shall first determine whether the government showed, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Pike possessed the firearm while he was in the bank committing the robbery. If the district court concludes that he did, the fivelevel enhancement is warranted. If the court finds that he did not, but that he left the firearm in the car parked “a ways away” from the bank, it may not impose the five-level enhancement because, in that case, Pike did not possess the UNITED STATES v. PIKE 699 gun during the robbery, including any attendant “escape,” as we are compelled to construe that term. [6] Our decision in United States v. Dinkane, 17 F.3d 1192, 1199 (9th Cir. 1994), is relevant. In Dinkane, we held that Section 2113(a) punishes the taking of property belonging to certain financial institutions. The taking continues beyond the immediate scene of the rob- bery, encompassing the escape. . . . [T]he crime of unarmed bank robbery continues throughout the period of hot pursuit. Id. (emphasis in original). In doing so, we considered whether the getaway car driver, who did not participate directly in the robbery of a bank, was guilty under § 2113(a). The facts established that Dinkane, directed by [his cousin], quickly drove from the bank. The getaway car was followed by a man who had been watching the car while it was parked in front of the bank. Id. at 1195. In Dinkane, we construed the terms “escape” and “hot pursuit” as being coterminous — we used them interchangeably, and concluded that the jury could have reasonably found Dinkane guilty of robbery at the point he fled the bank’s parking lot followed by a bystander’s car. Id. Several other circuits agree that “escape,” as synonymous with “hot pursuit,” is part and parcel of a bank robbery under § 2113(a). See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 344 F.3d 365, 372 (3d Cir. 2003) (holding that assaults occurring in hot pursuit fell “within the scope of the federal Bank Robbery Act”); United States v. Mills, 1 F.3d 414, 419-20 (6th Cir. 1993) (“Courts applying the bank robbery statute have concluded that the reference in 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) to assaults in committing the offense of bank robbery includes injuries caused during hot pursuit from a bank robbery.”); United States v. Pietras, 501 700 UNITED STATES v. PIKE F.2d 182, 187 (8th Cir. 1974) (holding that, under § 2113(a), robbery extends “to a hot pursuit that follows the physical departure from the bank building”). Dinkane remains our last word on the question. Our definition of the term “escape” is consistent not only with the precedent cited above, but also with the Supreme Court’s holding in Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255 (2000). In Carter, the Court considered whether the offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b) — “Whoever takes and carries away, with intent to steal or purloin, any property or money or any other thing of value exceeding $1,000” from a financial institution — is a lesser included offense of ordinary bank robbery under § 2113(a). Id. at 260. The Court concluded that it was not, in part because § 2113(b) requires a taking and carrying away of something of value, whereas § 2113(a) requires only a taking. Id. (emphasis added); see also Williams, 344 F.3d at 373 (holding that, under Carter, “the strict elements of a federal bank robbery offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) do not include ‘taking away’ ”). Thus, we are not persuaded by the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Martin, 749 F.2d 1514, 1518 (11th Cir. 1985), decided before Carter, which held that escape does not necessarily conclude when hot pursuit ends because “asportation is an element” of the offense under § 2113(a). After Carter, that justification for extending the scope of escape is no longer valid. In addition, our definition of “escape” as coextensive with “hot pursuit” comports with our case law generally addressing U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C). For example, in United States v. Taylor, 960 F.2d 115, 116-17 (9th Cir. 1992), we held that an enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) was warranted where the defendant showed an outline of a gun underneath a t-shirt, although the record did not reveal whether he actually possessed a gun. We concluded that the fact that the defendant intentionally created the appearance he had a gun was sufficient, because it (1) created greater apprehension in his victims, and (2) increased the likelihood that the police or UNITED STATES v. PIKE 701 bystanders would react using deadly force. Taylor, 960 F.2d at 116-17; see also United States v. Boyd, 924 F.2d 945, 947 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that the same two justifications warranted a § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) enhancement). Similarly, in the context of hot pursuit, the two rationales for the enhancement would apply because a firearm could create greater apprehension in the pursuers, who also would be more likely to use deadly force than if the would-be escapee did not possess a dangerous weapon. Neither reason, however, would support applying the enhancement during flight, more broadly defined, where there was neither pursuit nor pursuers. In such a case, there would be nobody in whom to instill apprehension, or from whom to increase the likelihood of a violent response. [7] For the foregoing reasons, we reaffirm our holding in Dinkane that the period of escape under § 2113(a) encompasses only hot pursuit. Here, there is no evidence in the record of hot pursuit; indeed, it is evident from the record that Pike was not followed by anyone while he was riding the bicycle to his vehicle. The facts show that either Pike had the gun with him in the backpack that he carried into the bank or the gun remained in the car during the actual robbery. In the latter case, an enhancement would be improper because the flight from the bank clearly ended when the defendant completed his bicycle trip from the crime scene to the car, which he then drove to the credit union in order to make a deposit to his landlord’s account. Driving the car to the credit union could not, under the circumstances, constitute a part of the flight. Accordingly, if on remand the district court finds that the government has not met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Pike possessed a gun while in the bank, it may not impose the five-level enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C). 702 UNITED STATES v. PIKE