United States v. Cedric Burns ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 19-10850      Document: 00515398754         Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/29/2020
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 19-10850                              FILED
    Summary Calendar                        April 29, 2020
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    CEDRIC D. BURNS,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:19-CR-39-1
    Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Cedric D. Burns appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea
    to robbing a credit union in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and § 2. He argues
    that the district court erred in applying a four-level enhancement for abduction
    under the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A). Although
    Burns concedes that credit union employees were moved from the teller area
    to the vault, he argues that this does not qualify as an abduction under the
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 19-10850     Document: 00515398754     Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/29/2020
    No. 19-10850
    Guidelines because the employees were not moved from the building, no force
    was used, the employees were not used as hostages or to facilitate an escape,
    and they were not bound after the robbery.
    For robbery offenses, the Sentencing Guidelines provide for a four-level
    enhancement “[i]f any person was abducted to facilitate commission of the
    offense or to facilitate escape.” § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A). The district court did not err
    in imposing the abduction enhancement. The record shows that Burns used a
    replica handgun to direct the employees, who feared for their safety, to the
    vault and to a cash recycling machine to access the money that was the target
    of the robbery. We have routinely held that robbery victims are abducted for
    purposes of § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A), even when they never leave the building, so long
    as the victims are forced, as here, to move from one area of the building to
    another to aid in the commission of the offense. See United States v. Smith,
    
    822 F.3d 755
    , 764 (5th Cir. 2016); see also United States v. Hefferon, 
    314 F.3d 211
    , 224-27 (5th Cir. 2002).
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-10850

Filed Date: 4/29/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/29/2020