United States v. Smith, 3rd Cir. (2014)
United States v. Smith, 3rd Cir. (2014)
United States v. Smith, 3rd Cir. (2014)
Ronald A. Krauss
Office of Federal Public Defender
100 Chestnut Street - #306
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Counsel for Appellant
George J. Rocktashel
Office of United States Attorney
240 West Third Street - #316
Williamsport, PA 17701
Counsel for Appellee
_______________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_______________
JORDAN, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
sentencing Thomas Smith to 171 months imprisonment for
carjacking, brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence,
and possessing a stolen firearm. For the reasons that follow,
we will affirm.
I.
Background
II.
Discussion2
forcing a bank teller from the bank into a getaway car would
constitute an abduction. Id. 1B1.1 cmt. n.1(A). In Reynos,
we described three predicates for applying the enhancement:
First, the robbery victims must be forced to
move from their original position; such force
being sufficient to permit a reasonable person
an inference that he or she is not at liberty to
refuse. Second, the victims must accompany
the offender to that new location. Third, the
relocation of the robbery victims must have
been to further either the commission of the
crime or the offenders escape.
680 F.3d at 286-87.
The pertinent facts of Reynos were these: while
robbing a pizza shop, the defendant kicked in a locked
bathroom door, brandished a weapon, and forced an
employee to accompany him to a cash register 34 feet away.
Id. at 285, 290. We concluded that the defendants purpose in
forcing the employees movement was to facilitate the
commission of a robbery by compelling that employee to
provide the defendant with access to the cash register. Id. at
289. We further held that the distance of over thirty feet was
enough for the action to qualify as abduction under the
Guidelines. Id. at 291.
Although the carjacking here presents different
circumstances than those at issue in Reynos in particular,
Whiting disregarded some of Smiths commands and
ultimately escaped we agree with the District Court that
Smiths actions satisfy the Reynos predicates for finding that
10
B.
11
12
Conclusion
13