Opinion ID: 3003976
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Abduction Enhancements

Text: In a robbery case, the guidelines sensibly punish an abduction of a victim (a four-point enhancement) more harshly than a restraint of a victim (a two-point enhancement). See U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4). But the line between a restraint and an abduction is a bit hazy. Eubanks says that the conduct in Count 12, in which one of the co- defendants forced an employee to the back of the beauty supply store to retrieve a surveillance video, was a “restraint” not an “abduction.” He also contends that in the jewelry store robbery in Count 14, where the victim was dragged less than six feet, the conduct should likewise have been deemed a restraint instead of an abduction. Under the guidelines, an abduction occurs when “a victim was forced to accompany an offender to a different location.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, comment (n.1(A)). Restraint is “the forcible restraint of the victim such as by being tied, bound, or locked up.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, comment (n.1(K)). Here, the issue turns on whether the store employees were forced to accompany the defendants to “a different location.” If the answer to that question is yes, then an abduction occurred. Because this depends No. 09-1029 13 on an interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines, our review is de novo. White, 222 F.3d at 372. Eubanks argues that forcing an employee to another room in the same small building warrants only a twolevel enhancement for restraint. Both the PSR and the government (at least in its briefing in the district court) agreed that the conduct in both robberies was better characterized as a restraint rather than an abduction. Nonetheless, the district court sua sponte held that transporting the victims from one room to another in the same building—even if they are small retail stores— satisfied the movement “to a different location” requirement, thus warranting a four-level abduction enhancement for both robberies. Recall that in Count 12 (the beauty supply store robbery) the victim was taken to the back room to retrieve the surveillance tape while in Count 14 (the jewelry store robbery) the victim was dragged about six feet, again from the back room to the front of the store. The court found that moving an employee to another room was more serious than keeping all of the employees in the same room because it isolated the employee, increasing the likelihood that the employee would resist and thus increasing the chance of injury. An abduction enhancement is not supported by this Circuit’s case law. In United States v. Carter, 410 F.3d 942, 954 (7th Cir. 2005), we held that forcing a bank teller at gunpoint from the back vault to her drawer against her will constitutes a restraint. And in a similar case, we held that a restraint enhancement was appropriate 14 No. 09-1029 where the defendant directed three bank tellers to a small room in the back of the bank at gunpoint. United States v. Doubet, 969 F.2d 341, 346 (7th Cir. 1992); see also United States v. Nelson, 137 F.3d 1094, 1112 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[O]rder[ing] a jewelry store employee and customer to the back room at gunpoint . . . constitutes physical restraint.”). By contrast, forcing a bank employee at gunpoint from a parking lot into the bank warranted a fourlevel enhancement for abduction. United States v. Taylor, 128 F.3d 1105, 1110-11 (7th Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Gall, 116 F.3d 228, 230 (7th Cir. 1997) (abduction enhancement proper where victims were forced at gunpoint into trucks and drove around “a significant distance”); United States v. Davis, 48 F.3d 277, 279 (7th Cir. 1995) (forcing victim at gunpoint from parking lot to inside the credit union satisfied abduction requirement). The district court relied on a recently decided Fourth Circuit case, United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2008), in finding the abduction enhancements applicable. In Osborne, the Fourth Circuit began by finding the “absence of movement across a building threshold or property line does not bar the conclusion that movement ‘to a different location’ occurred.” Id. at 389. Instead, it adopted a more flexible, case by case approach that did not mechanically rely “on the presence or absence of doorways, lot lines, thresholds, and the like.” Id. at 389-90 (internal quotations omitted). From there, the Osborne court held that the defendant’s forced movement of Walgreens employees from the pharmacy section through the store area to the front door of the Walgreens building amounted to abduction under the guidelines. Id. at 391. In No. 09-1029 15 so finding, the court relied heavily on the fact that the defendant forced the victims to accompany him so he could “keep[ ] [the] victims close by as readily accessible hostages.” Id. at 390. The facts here are significantly different from Osborne. In Osborne, the defendant forced store employees from an independent section of the store, which was separated by a secured door and only accessible by authorized persons via keypad, through the entire building and out to the front door. More importantly, the victims in Osborne were essentially taken hostage to facilitate the defendant’s escape—which is the type of conduct “plainly targeted by the abduction enhancement.” Osborne, 514 F.3d at 390. But in Count 12, a co-defendant forced a store employee to the back room of a retail beauty supply store to retrieve a surveillance video. And in Count 14, the victim was moved no more than six feet. Thus, the distance and nature of the confinements in this case were materially different than in Osborne. We think that this case is indistinguishable from cases such as Carter and Doubet. Under these facts, and taking into account the physical dimensions of the structures at issue, transporting the victims from one room to another is simply not enough for abduction. To find otherwise would virtually ensure that any movement of a victim from one room to another within the same building, without any other aggravating circumstances, would result in an abduction enhancement. While there may well be situations in which an abduction enhancement is proper even though the victim remained within 16 No. 09-1029 a single building, those facts are not present here. Thus, the district court erred by enhancing Eubanks’ offense levels four points for Counts 12 and 14. Instead, these counts should be enhanced two levels each for restraint.