Court Opinion

ID: 9391361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 00:00:27.369309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:41.337374
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30114     Document: 00516733396         Page: 1     Date Filed: 05/01/2023

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                               Fifth Circuit

                                ____________                                 FILED
                                                                          May 1, 2023
                                  No. 22-30114                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                ____________                                 Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                        versus

   Richard Sansbury,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                           USDC No. 2:19-CR-145-1
                  ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Smith, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Kurt D. Engelhardt, Circuit Judge:
          Appellant Richard Sansbury (“Sansbury”) appeals the four-level
   sentencing enhancement for abduction to his base offense level under
   U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A). For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM
   the district court’s judgment.
                                    I. Background
          In June 2019, Sansbury and his co-defendant Alan Parson (“Parson”)
   entered a CVS pharmacy through the store’s front doors to commit an armed
   robbery. Sansbury forced the cashier from the cashier area at the front of the
Case: 22-30114       Document: 00516733396             Page: 2      Date Filed: 05/01/2023

                                        No. 22-30114

   store into the restroom, zip-tied his hands together, and left him there during
   the robbery. The store manager observed the robbery from within a locked
   office and called the police. While Sansbury incapacitated the cashier in the
   restroom, Parson went to the pharmacy, placed the pharmacist on the ground
   at gunpoint, and zip-tied his feet together. Sansbury and Parson then began
   removing narcotics, including controlled substances, from behind the
   pharmacy counter and putting them into a black bag.
          When police officers arrived, they encountered Sansbury and Parson
   attempting to exit the CVS. Sansbury and Parson retreated into the store
   while the officers sought cover outside the front door and in the parking lot.
   Sansbury and Parson then ran out of the store as they shot at the police
   officers. One police officer sustained a gunshot wound to the shoulder area.
   Parson sustained multiple gunshot wounds and was arrested immediately
   following the robbery. Sansbury sustained a gunshot wound to his leg and was
   arrested several hours later, hiding in the backyard of a nearby house.
                                 II. Procedural History
          Sansbury, pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to several charges
   related to the robbery. 1 The presentence report (“PSR”) provided that the
   base offense level for the robbery offenses was 20 under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(a).
   In addition to several other enhancements not at issue on appeal, Sansbury
   received a four-level enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) for physically
   abducting a person “to facilitate the commission of the offense or to facilitate
   escape” because he forced the cashier into the restroom and zip-tied his
   hands together.

           _____________________
          1
             Sansbury pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit a robbery involving controlled
   substances, committing a robbery involving controlled substances, and discharging a
   firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.

                                              2
Case: 22-30114       Document: 00516733396           Page: 3     Date Filed: 05/01/2023

                                      No. 22-30114

          Defense counsel filed a written objection to the abduction
   enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A), arguing that Sansbury did not move
   the cashier from place to place and that the movement of the cashier did not
   enable him to commit the crime or facilitate his escape. The Government
   responded that the forced physical movement of a victim from one location
   to another inside of the store constituted an abduction and that it enabled the
   robbers to commit the crime by preventing the victim from contacting police
   officers or otherwise preventing the robbery from occurring, and it facilitated
   the robbers’ escape from the store.
          At the sentencing hearing, Sansbury renewed his objection to the
   § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) enhancement. The district court overruled his objection,
   finding that under the facts of the case, Sansbury abducted the victim within
   the meaning of the Guidelines when he forced the victim to relocate from the
   cashier area to the bathroom and zip-tied the victim’s hands. The district
   court further found that the abduction facilitated the commission of the
   offense and the escape as it prevented the cashier from contacting law
   enforcement officers or otherwise preventing the robbery from occurring.
   Sansbury was sentenced to a total of 241 months of imprisonment. Sansbury
   timely appealed.
                                 III. Legal Standard
          Sentences are reviewed for reasonableness in light of the sentencing
   factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
   This court reviews the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing
   Guidelines de novo. United States v. Buck, 847 F.3d 267, 276 (5th Cir. 2017).
   The district court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error. United
   States v. Gomez-Valle, 828 F.3d 324, 327 (5th Cir. 2016). “A factual finding
   is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the record read as a whole.”
   Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

                                            3
Case: 22-30114      Document: 00516733396           Page: 4   Date Filed: 05/01/2023

                                     No. 22-30114

                                  IV. Discussion
          The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a four-level enhancement “[i]f
   any person was abducted to facilitate the commission of the offense or to
   facilitate escape[.]” § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A). “Abducted” means that “a victim was
   forced to accompany an offender to a different location.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1,
   cmt. (n.1(A)); see § 2B3.1, cmt. (n.1). The commentary states, “[f]or
   example, a bank robber’s forcing a bank teller from the bank into a getaway
   car would constitute an abduction.” § 1B1.1, cmt. (n.1(A)).
          Sansbury contends that the district court erred in applying the
   abduction sentencing enhancement for three reasons. First, Sansbury argues
   that he “did not force the victim to ‘accompany’ him anywhere” and that
   forcing the cashier from the cashier area to the restroom “does not qualify as
   the type of ‘forced accompaniment’ required by the abduction
   enhancement.” We disagree. Sansbury pointed a gun at the cashier and
   forced him to walk with Sansbury from the cashier area to the restroom,
   where Sansbury zip-tied the cashier’s hands. Thus, Sansbury forced the
   cashier to accompany him.
          Second, Sansbury challenges the district court’s determination that
   the “different location” requirement of § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) was satisfied when
   he moved the cashier to the bathroom. This circuit has repeatedly held that
   “the term ‘different location’ should be interpreted flexibly on a case by case
   basis.” United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 469, 472 (5th Cir. 2010). Moreover,
   the abduction enhancement is proper “even though the victim remained
   within a single building.” Id. at 474. Here, Sansbury forced the cashier from
   the cashier’s area at the front of the store to the restroom. Accordingly, the
   different location requirement was also satisfied.
          Third, Sansbury argues that moving the cashier to the restroom did
   not facilitate or play a role in the commission of the robbery or his escape. We

                                          4
Case: 22-30114     Document: 00516733396           Page: 5   Date Filed: 05/01/2023

                                    No. 22-30114

   are unconvinced. Sansbury forced the cashier to the restroom and then zip-
   tied him there so he would not interfere with the robbery or call the police.
   This incapacitation of the cashier prevented the cashier from interfering in
   or disrupting the robbery, thereby facilitating the commission of the offense.
   Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in imposing the
   abduction enhancement.
                                  V. Conclusion
          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                         5