United States v. Garcia

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20320
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANSELMO GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-00-CR-757-ALL)
--------------------
October 15, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Anselmo Garcia claims that the district
court erred in enhancing his offense level under U.S.S.G. §
2B3.1(b)(4)(A) based on his “abduction” of bank employees, arguing
that no victim was forced to accompany him to a different location.
He insists that he did not assault the bank employees in question,
and that the employees had to move no more than a few feet to enter
the bank, as he commanded. Garcia further asserts that their
movement did not facilitate the commission of the bank robbery.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
An “abduction” occurs within the context of U.S.S.G. §
2B3.1(b)(4)(A) when “a victim [is] forced to accompany an offender
to a different location.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, comment. (n.1(a)).
The term “a different location” has been flexibly applied and can
include movement entirely on property of a single owner. See
United States v. Hawkins, 87 F.3d 722, 727 (5th Cir. 1996). Merely
crossing the threshold of a building, even when the distance of the
move is minuscule, may be construed as movement to a different
location. Id.
Reliable evidence contained in the presentence report and
adduced at the sentencing hearing reflect that Garcia pointed his
weapon at two female bank employees and demanded that they enter
the bank, which was not their planned destination at the time that
he approached them. The district court’s determination that
Garcia’s actions facilitated the offense is supported by the
record. His actions also prevented the employees from escaping to
obtain assistance and indicated to other bank employees that Garcia
would use force to carry out the robbery.
The district court did not clearly err in imposing the
enhancement based on an abduction. Garcia’s sentence is
AFFIRMED.
2