UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5200
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY DAESHAWN BATTLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L.
Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00026-WO-1)
Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 7, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills
Wagoner, United States Attorney, Graham T. Green, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Daeshawn Battle appeals the 146-month sentence
imposed following a guilty plea to armed bank robbery in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (2006), and brandishing a
firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006). On appeal, Battle
contends that the district court erred by applying a four-level
increase to his offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual (“USSG”) § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) (2008) for abducting a bank
employee during the commission of the robbery. We affirm.
We review a sentence under a deferential abuse of
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). “In assessing whether a sentencing court properly
applied the Guidelines, we review the court’s factual findings
for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United
States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
The term “abducted” “means that a victim was forced to
accompany an offender to a different location.” USSG § 1B1.1,
comment. (n. 1(A)). We have held that “movement within the
confines of a single building can constitute movement to a
different location . . . .” Osborne, 514 F.3d at 389-90
(internal quotation marks omitted). “[E]ven a temporary
abduction can constitute an abduction for purposes of the
2
sentencing guidelines.” United States v. Nale, 101 F.3d 1000,
1003 (4th Cir. 1996). We have adopted a “flexible, case by case
approach to determin[e] when movement to a different location
has occurred.” Osborne, 514 F.3d at 390 (internal quotation
marks omitted). Our review of the record leads us to conclude
that Battle abducted the bank employee during the commission of
the robbery, and the district court did not err in applying a
four-level enhancement to his offense level.
Accordingly, we affirm Battle’s sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3