![]() ![]() In Eubanks, a group of robbers forced a beauty supply store employee into a back room to retrieve surveillance footage and in a second robbery dragged a jewelry store employee approximately six feet from a back room into the main storefront. ![]() The Seventh Circuit was the first to adopt the narrow interpretation in United States v. The Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits have adopted the narrow interpretation and the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits have adopted the broad interpretation. In the case of abducted, the federal circuit courts are divided on the proper interpretation of “different location” as it pertains to robberies. The Authority Split on “Different Location”Īlthough the Guidelines define ambiguous terms like “abducted,” the definitions can only take courts as far as the terms used within those definitions. if any person was physically restrained to facilitate commission of the offense or to facilitate escape, increase by 2 levels.” The Guidelines’ define physically restrained as “the forcible restraint of the victim such as by being tied, bound, or locked up.” Immediately following the abduction enhancement, Section 2B3.1(b)(4)(B) states, “or. For example, a bank robber’s forcing a bank teller from the bank into a getaway car would constitute an abduction.” Īlternatively, if a robber does not satisfy the accompany or different location elements of abduction, he may still receive a lesser version of the enhancement. Section 1B1.1 Commentary Application Note 1(A) states, “ ‘abducted’ means that a victim was forced to accompany an offender to a different location. Section 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) of the Guidelines states, “if any person was abducted to facilitate commission of the offense or to facilitate escape, increase by 4 levels.” The Guidelines provide definitions of commonly used enhancements like abduction to prevent ambiguity. Ībduction is another sentencing enhancement for robbery. If the aforementioned robber with a total offense level of twenty-four has four prior convictions, the Guidelines mandate he be sentenced to between sixty-three and seventy-eight-months of imprisonment. Once determined, the two factors are cross-referenced in the Guidelines’ Sentencing Table to find the appropriate sentencing range. For example, any offender with four, five, or six prior convictions falls in Criminal History Category III. The second factor, offender characteristics, refers to the offender’s prior convictions. For example, robbery has a base level of twenty and can be enhanced by three levels if the robber brandished a firearm and an additional two levels if he caused a loss of $100,000.00. Each offense is assigned a base level and subsequent level enhancements based on the details of the offense. The first factor, offense behavior, evaluates the severity of the offense committed. The Act directed the USSC to create a two factor sentencing system. The Guidelines were created by the USSC pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (the “Act”). Sentencing Guidelines Manual (the “Guidelines”) to calculate an appropriate sentence length. When a person is convicted of a federal crime and is going to be imprisoned, the court must follow the U.S. Finally, Part V criticizes the shortcomings of both interpretations and urges a focus on a more flexible, hybrid interpretation of “different location.” Part IV evaluates the benefits and detriments of each interpretation and proposes a modified approach to the broad interpretation. ![]() Part III analyzes the circuit split and the courts’ justifications of their interpretations. This article reviews the circuit courts’ interpretations of “different location.” Part II breaks down the relevant sentencing guideline, § 2B3.1. The narrow interpretation of the definition holds that “different location” refers to two separate buildings or properties, whereas the broad interpretation holds that “different location” could also refer to different rooms within one building or even different parts of the same room. ![]() Specifically, the circuit courts disagree on whether the definition’s use of the term “different location” can describe two parts of the same building or property. This past June, the Sixth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals contributed to a circuit split on how to interpret the United States Sentencing Commission’s (the “USSC”) definition of abduction in the context of robbery. Carter Ostrowski, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |