United States v. Jaelon Harris ( 2020 )

Case: 19-20791 Document: 00515582539 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 29, 2020
No. 19-20791
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jaelon David Harris,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:17-CR-681-1
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jaelon David Harris pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to
interference with commerce by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a),
and using and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of
violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and he was sentenced to 49
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-20791 Document: 00515582539 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/29/2020
No. 19-20791
months of imprisonment on the robbery count and 84 months on the firearm
count, to run consecutively, for a total of 133 months, and three years of
supervised release. He argues that the district court erred in applying the
four-level sentencing enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) for
abduction of the store employees. He recognizes that his argument is
foreclosed in this circuit by United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 469, 474 (5th
Cir. 2010), but he seeks to preserve the argument for further appellate
review.
For robbery offenses, the Guidelines provide 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). A person is abducted if he
or she is “forced to accompany an offender to a different location.” U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.1, comment. (n.1(A)). The phrase “a different location” is interpreted
flexibly and on a case-by-case basis, “not mechanically based on the presence
or absence of doorways, lot lines, thresholds, and the like.” United States v.
Hawkins, 87 F.3d 722, 726-28 (5th Cir. 1996). We have “consistently held
that the forced movement of a bank employee from one room of a bank to
another—so long as it is in aid of commission of the offense or to facilitate
escape—is sufficient to support the [abduction] enhancement.” United
States v. Smith, 822 F.3d 755, 764 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks,
brackets, and citation omitted).
The record shows that Harris forced one store employee, at gunpoint,
to move from the entrance of the store back into the store, and he forced
another employee, at gunpoint, to move to a back room of the store to open
the safe. Accordingly, on the facts of this case, the district court did not
clearly err in applying the abduction enhancement. See Johnson, 619 F.3d at
472, 474.
AFFIRMED.
2