Case: 10-10126 Document: 00511231773 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/13/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 13, 2010
No. 10-10126
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
TONY ANTHONY JOHNSON
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, San Angelo Division
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:
Defendant Tony Anthony Johnson appeals his sentence entered after a
guilty plea conviction for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
Specifically, Johnson challenges the four-level enhancement applied to his
sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A). Finding no error, we affirm.
I.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Tony Anthony Johnson pleaded guilty to
bank robbery. The factual basis, which was signed by Johnson and his trial
counsel, provided that Johnson robbed the BBVA Compass Bank in Winters,
Texas; he took bags of money later determined to contain $1880 and went out of
the front door; he ran back into the bank when he saw police officers arriving;
Case: 10-10126 Document: 00511231773 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/13/2010
No. 10-10126
he jumped over the teller counter, grabbed a teller around the throat, and held
a knife to her; he then released the teller and ran out of the back door of the
bank. Johnson was arrested later the same day. At the rearraignment hearing,
Johnson admitted that the facts set forth in the factual basis were true.
The Presentence Report (PSR) provided the following additional facts
concerning the offense. After Johnson ran back into the bank, officers entered
the bank through the front door with their guns drawn and ordered Johnson to
stop. Johnson jumped over the teller counter, grabbed the teller around the
throat with his arm, and held a knife to her. Johnson yelled at the officers to go
back outside of the bank, and they exited. He started walking the teller toward
the front of the bank and asked her if there was a back door. The teller told
Johnson that there was a back door, it was locked, and she had the keys to the
back door in her drawer. Johnson let go of the teller and walked behind her to
the teller station; he kept pushing her forward and said, “hurry up, hurry up, or
I am going to hurt you.” After she got the keys, she walked to the back door with
Johnson pushing her forward. After the teller unlocked the door, Johnson ran
out of the bank.
The PSR assigned a base offense level of 20 pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 2B3.1(a) under the 2009 Sentencing Guidelines. Johnson received a two-level
increase pursuant to § 2B3.1(b)(1) because the property of a financial institution
was taken. He received a four-level increase under § 2B3.1(b)(2)(D) because a
knife was used. He received an additional four-level increase under
§ 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) because he abducted a person to facilitate his escape. The
probation officer recommended that Johnson receive a three-level reduction in
his offense level based on his acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 3E1.1(a) and (b) and noted that the Government would formally move the court
to grant the additional one-level reduction. The resulting total offense level was
27. Johnson’s total criminal history score was seven, resulting in a criminal
2
Case: 10-10126 Document: 00511231773 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/13/2010
No. 10-10126
history category of IV. The resulting advisory guidelines range was 100 to 125
months of imprisonment.
Johnson objected to the four-level enhancement for abduction. He argued
that his actions did not amount to abduction as defined in the Guidelines and
that instead he should have received a two-level increase for physically
restraining the teller pursuant to § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B).1 He argued that the four-
level enhancement usually applies in cases in which the defendant forces an
individual by threats or violence to accompany the robber to another location.
He asserted that the two-level enhancement is more appropriate in this case
because the defendant merely physically restrained the teller and did not force
the teller to accompany him to another location. The probation officer responded
that the four-level enhancement was appropriate because Johnson physically
restrained the teller with his arm around her neck and held a knife to her
throat; he yelled at the police officers to go back outside; he forced her to
accompany him from place to place inside the bank for the purpose of facilitating
his escape.
At the sentencing hearing, the Government presented the testimony of
Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent John Broadway to support the
four-level enhancement. He testified that he interviewed two bank employees
who were inside the bank at the time of the robbery and reviewed surveillance
photos from the bank’s digital video security system. One photo depicts the
teller standing at the teller drawer, with the other employee and Johnson
standing on the opposite side of the counter. Another photo shows Johnson
jumping over the teller counter toward the teller; this occurred after Johnson
1
Under § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B), a defendant should receive a two-level increase in his offense
level if any person was physically restrained to facilitate commission of the offense or to
facilitate escape. “Physically restrained” is defined as “the forcible restraint of the victim such
as by being tied, bound, or locked up.” § 1B1.1, comment. (n.1(K)).
3
Case: 10-10126 Document: 00511231773 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/13/2010
No. 10-10126
encountered the responding police officers in the front of the bank. The next
photo shows Johnson holding the teller in front of him with his left arm around
her neck and his right hand holding a knife to her throat. The teller told Agent
Broadway that she could feel the knife against her throat. According to the
teller, Johnson forced her to walk along the back side of the teller counter until
he could see out of the front door and could see police officers outside. He forced
her to go back to her teller station, obtain the keys to the back door, then walk
to the back door and open it for him. When she got to her teller station, Johnson
let her go, but he was right behind her, pushing her and telling her to hurry up
or he would hurt her. The last photo shows the teller approaching the back door
with Johnson behind her. Agent Broadway estimated that Johnson forced the
teller to walk approximately 85 feet around the inside of the bank with a knife
held to her throat and that Johnson had held the teller for approximately 37 to
55 seconds.
Johnson’s counsel renewed her objection to the enhancement, but did not
dispute the above facts or present any evidence to rebut the testimony of Agent
Broadway. The district court overruled the objection and found that the four-
level enhancement should be assessed because Johnson abducted the bank teller
during the course of the bank robbery. After the district court overruled his
objection and adopted the PSR, The district court sentenced Johnson to 125
months of imprisonment, stating that it believed the sentence adequately
addressed the sentencing objections of punishment and deterrence, as well as
the other factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Johnson timely filed a notice of appeal.
II.
Johnson argues that the district court erred in applying the four-level
enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A), because he did not abduct or force the
4
Case: 10-10126 Document: 00511231773 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/13/2010
No. 10-10126
teller to accompany him to another location. Following Booker,2 sentences are
reviewed for reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors in § 3553(a).
United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir. 2005). In Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 50-51 (2007), the Supreme Court bifurcated its test for
determining the reasonableness of a sentence. Under this test, this court first
determines whether the district court committed any significant procedural
error, such as failing to calculate or incorrectly calculating the guidelines range,
treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the factors in § 3553(a),
basing the sentence on clearly erroneous facts, or not adequately explaining the
sentence, including any deviations. Id. at 51. If there is no procedural error,
this court then “consider[s] the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. Where, as here, the
defendant objects to a sentencing enhancement in the district court, this court
reviews the district court’s interpretation and application of the Guidelines de
novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Gonzalez, 445 F.3d
815, 817 (5th Cir. 2006).
Under § 2B3.1, a defendant should receive a four-level increase in his
offense level “[i]f any person was abducted to facilitate commission of the offense
or to facilitate escape.” § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A). A victim is “abducted” if he is “forced
to accompany an offender to a different location. For example, a bank robber’s
forcing a bank teller from the bank into a getaway car would constitute an
abduction.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, comment. (n.1(A)); § 2B3.1, comment. (n.1).
This court has held that in determining whether the abduction
enhancement is applicable, the term “different location” should be interpreted
flexibly on a case by case basis. United States v. Hawkins, 87 F.3d 722, 726-28
(5th Cir. 1996). In Hawkins, this court considered whether the moving of a
2
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
5
Case: 10-10126 Document: 00511231773 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/13/2010
No. 10-10126
victim at gunpoint for 40 to 50 feet across a parking lot toward a van constituted
an abduction, even though the victim escaped before being put into the van.
This court determined that the term, “a different location,” as used in the
comments to § 1B1.1, is “flexible and thus susceptible of multiple
interpretations, which are to be applied case by case to the particular facts under
scrutiny, not mechanically based on the presence or absence of doorways, lot
lines, thresholds, and the like.” Id. at 727-28. Therefore, this court determined
that the district court did not commit reversible error in determining that an
abduction had occurred because “it would be unduly legalistic, even punctilious”
to determine that the two parking locations were not separate “locations” for
purposes of § 1B1.1 or that “something as coincidental and insignificant as a lot
line or doorway could make or break the determination of ‘different location.’”
Id.
Other cases from this circuit have similar holdings that support the
district court’s conclusion that the abduction enhancement should apply to the
facts of this case. In United States v. Jefferson, 258 F.3d 405, 409-12 (5th Cir.
2001), the car jacking victim was sitting in her car in a mall parking lot, when
the defendant jerked open her door, grabbed her by the hair, and put a gun in
her face. The victim fought with the assailant and managed to get out of her car,
only to be struck in the head and forced back into the vehicle. Id. She
subsequently managed to jump out of the moving vehicle. Id. The court
determined that her movement back into the vehicle after attempting to escape
constituted an abduction to a different location for sentence enhancement
purposes. Id. at 412.
In United States v. Hefferon, 314 F.3d 211, 225-26 (5th Cir. 2002), the
court held that an abduction occurred when the defendant moved the victim
from some trees near a playground where he had sexually assaulted her, to a
garbage repository where he sexually assaulted her again. The court noted that
6
Case: 10-10126 Document: 00511231773 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/13/2010
No. 10-10126
“[a]bduction increases the gravity of sexual assault or other crimes because the
perpetrator’s ability to isolate the victim increases the likelihood that the victim
will be harmed.” Id. at 226 (internal quotations and citation omitted). The court
determined that the enhancement should not be applied mechanically and that
it was “not precluded merely because the different location is on the same
lodging facility property.” Id.
In an unpublished case, this court affirmed the application of the
abduction enhancement where the defendant pointed his weapon at two bank
employees and demanded that they enter the bank. United States v. Garcia,
2001 WL 1267728 (5ir Cir. 2001).3 The employees had not planned to enter the
bank at the time that the defendant approached them. Id. This court found that
the district court did not clearly err in holding that the abduction enhancement
applied. Id. In an unpublished case similar to the instant one, this court
affirmed the application of the abduction enhancement where the defendant
forced security guards to move around within the bank, although he argued that
he did not have the intent to abduct them. United States v. Sutton, 337 F. App’x
422 (5th Cir. 2009). However, the court also affirmed on the alternative ground
that the sentencing court stated it would have imposed same sentence even if
enhancement were not applicable.
The Fourth Circuit has affirmed the application of the abduction
enhancement in cases involving movement from one section of a store to another.
Osborne, 514 F.3d at 389-90. In Osborne, the defendant moved the victims
through the secured door of the pharmacy department of a Walgreens store,
across the store through the aisles, to the front of the store. Id. at 389-90. The
3
Although unpublished cases from this court rendered after January 1, 1996, and
decisions from other circuit courts are not controlling precedent, they may be considered
persuasive authority. See Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006); United
States v. Sauseda, 596 F.3d 279, 282 (5th Cir. 2010) (stating that decisions from other circuits
are persuasive authority); 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4.
7
Case: 10-10126 Document: 00511231773 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/13/2010
No. 10-10126
court determined that the pharmacy and the store area were different locations
within the Walgreens building, given that the pharmacy was divided by a
counter as well as a secured door which was passable only by authorized persons
via a keypad. Id. at 390. The court also noted that the defendant forced the
victims to accompany him as he made his way frm the pharmacy section to the
front door so he could “keep[ ] [the] victims close by as readily accessible
hostages.” Id. at 390; see also United States v. Coates, 113 F. App’x 520 (4th Cir.
2004), vacated on other grounds, 544 U.S. 916 (2005) (vacating and remanding
case in light of Booker)(affirming the application of the abduction enhancement
where the defendant accosted an eleven-year-old girl in Target store, moved her
from department to department, threatened her with a knife, and sexually
assaulted her).
According to Johnson, the abduction enhancement should not apply
because he did not force the teller to enter or exit a structure and when she
unlocked the back door, he did not make any attempt to take her with him from
the bank. He maintains that this case does not involve the threat of additional
harm that abduction can present. He asserts that this court has never held that
movement within a single enclosed structure constitutes abduction, much less
movement within the same room of a single enclosed structure. Johnson also
asserts that the Fourth Circuit’s cases, United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377,
380-81 (4th Cir. 2008), and United States v. Coates, 113 F. App’x 520 (4th Cir.
2004), are distinguishable because they involved the movements of victims from
one department of a store to another; here, the bank had only one room with no
separate, distinct sections.
The Seventh Circuit has held that the abduction enhancement did not
apply in a similar robbery case. The Seventh Circuit determined that an
abduction enhancement should not apply in a case similar to the instant one
involving a string of armed robberies in which the defendants forced the victims
8
Case: 10-10126 Document: 00511231773 Page: 9 Date Filed: 09/13/2010
No. 10-10126
to move around within the same building. United States v. Eubanks, 593 F.3d
645, 648 (7th Cir. 2010). In a robbery of a beauty store, one of the robbers forced
an employee at gunpoint into a back room to retrieve the store’s surveillance
video. Id. In another robbery of a jewelry store, the defendant hopped over the
counter and forced an employee to the ground at gunpoint. Id. The defendant
then dragged a second employee from the back room to the front room, causing
the employee to suffer scratches and bruises. Id. The Seventh Circuit
distinguished the case from Osborne and found that under the circumstances of
the case, transporting the victims from one room to another was not enough to
constitute abduction. Id. at 653. The court noted in particular that “the victims
in Osbourne were essentially taken hostage to facilitate the defendant’s escape
– which is the type of conduct ‘plainly targeted by the abduction enhancement.’”
Id. citing Osbourne, 514 F.3d at 390. The court also recognized that although
there might be situations where an abduction enhancement was proper even
though the victim remained within a single building, those facts were not
present in that case. Id. at 653-54.
We think this case presents the type of situation where the abduction
enhancement is proper, even though the victim remained within a single
building. Johnson jumped over the teller counter to the employee section of the
bank and used the teller as a hostage to force the police to retreat from the bank.
He then forced the victim to accompany him to the front of the bank. When
Johnson saw that the police were in front of the bank, the defendant asked the
victim if there was a rear exit. She told him there was a locked back door and
that she had a key in her drawer. He then forced her back to her teller station
to retrieve the key and then forced her to accompany him to the rear door to
unlock it for him, facilitating his escape. On the facts of this case, the district
court did not err in applying the abduction enhancement.
9
Case: 10-10126 Document: 00511231773 Page: 10 Date Filed: 09/13/2010
No. 10-10126
III.
For the foregoing reasons, Johnson’s sentence is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
10