Opinion ID: 4272324
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Physical Restraint Sentencing Enhancement

Text: Fourth, Steele contends the district court erred by applying a physical restraint sentencing enhancement. 6 Section 2B3.1(b)(4)(B) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a two-level enhancement “if any person was physically restrained to facilitate commission of the offense or to facilitate escape . . . .” U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B). The enhancement “applies when the defendant’s conduct ensured the victims’ compliance and effectively prevented them from leaving a location.” United States v. Victor, 719 F.3d 1288, 1290 (11th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). As noted in Application Note 1, “physically restrained” is defined as “the forcible restraint of the victim such as by being tied, bound, or locked up.” U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1, comment (n.1); § 1B1.1, comment (n.1(K)). However, the 6 Steele objected to the upward adjustment to his sentence. Accordingly, “[w]e review a sentencing court’s findings of fact for clear error and its application of the guidelines de novo.” United States v. Victor, 719 F.3d 1288, 1290 (11th Cir. 2013). 9 Case: 16-17719 Date Filed: 05/03/2018 Page: 10 of 12 physical restraint enhancement is not limited to these specific examples and may also apply when the defendant’s conduct has “ensured the victims’ compliance and effectively prevented them from leaving.” Victor, 719 F.3d at 1290 (quotation omitted). A physical restraint enhancement has been applied even where the defendant threatened a victim with something merely believed to be a gun to prevent the victim from leaving. Id. The Presentence Investigation Report acknowledged that although E.W., a customer, was not necessarily “tied up” by Steele and the other men, E.W.’s mobility was restricted when he was “instructed, at gunpoint, to lie down on the ground.” Further, as the district court noted, even though E.W. was subsequently instructed to get back up, he was still being instructed to do or not to do certain things and was not free to leave, which was a restraint of his movement in facilitation of the robbery within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B). United States v. Jones, 32 F.3d 1512, 1519 (11th Cir. 1994). Thus, the district court did not err when it applied the physical restraint enhancement. 7 7 We need not discuss Steele’s conduct toward V.T., a store clerk, because only one instance of physical restraint is needed to support applying the enhancement. 10 Case: 16-17719 Date Filed: 05/03/2018 Page: 11 of 12