Opinion ID: 628547
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Restraint of Victim

Text: 32 Pursuant to U.S.S.G. Sec. 3A1.3 a sentencing judge must adjust offense levels by two if a victim was physically restrained in the course of the underlying offense. The district court made the adjustment based on its finding that Rosemary had taken Tammy by the arm and compelled her to follow Rosemary to such events as the Thanksgiving gathering, and that when Tammy expressed the desire to move out of the apartment she shared with another Smith family member, Rosemary had grabbed her by the arm and arranged for their transportation to another California location. 33 Defendants argue that by applying this adjustment and making the findings of 'restraint' at sentencing the court squarely violated this circuit's prohibition against trial judges circumventing the jury's findings implicit in an acquittal. United States v. Brady, 928 F.2d 844, 850, 851 n. 12 (9th Cir.1991). Rosemary's Opening Brief at 32. This argument also has no merit. To find that Tammy was physically restrained does not directly contradict[ ] or effectively overrule[ ] the jury's verdict. Id. at 850. The findings do not fall into the category of facts that cannot be used by a district court in imposing sentence, i.e., facts that have been rejected by a jury's not guilty verdict. Id. at 851 n. 12. The jury acquitted defendants of a federal kidnapping charge. No lesser included charges were considered. Kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1201(a)(1) requires that the government prove the victim was wilfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce. The judge is not precluded, by the charge or the verdict, from considering evidence of events which occurred intrastate or without the level of intent necessary to convict for kidnapping. Unlike the sentencing judge in Brady, the judge did not find the defendants guilty of the same elements of the crime for which they had been acquitted. Brady, 928 F.2d at 850. 34 Judy and Rosemary contend that the sentencing judge misconstrued the definition of physical restraint. They argue that the factual findings do not amount to being tied, bound, or locked up. U.S.S.G. Sec. 1B1.1 comment, (n. 1(i)). We disagree. The language of the definition indicates that physical restraint is not limited to these examples. 7