United States v. Sansbury ( 2023 )

Case: 22-30114 Document: 00516733396 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/01/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
May 1, 2023
No. 22-30114 Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Richard Sansbury,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:19-CR-145-1
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Smith, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Kurt D. Engelhardt, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Richard Sansbury (“Sansbury”) appeals the four-level
sentencing enhancement for abduction to his base offense level under
U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A). For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM
the district court’s judgment.
I. Background
In June 2019, Sansbury and his co-defendant Alan Parson (“Parson”)
entered a CVS pharmacy through the store’s front doors to commit an armed
robbery. Sansbury forced the cashier from the cashier area at the front of the
Case: 22-30114 Document: 00516733396 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/01/2023
No. 22-30114
store into the restroom, zip-tied his hands together, and left him there during
the robbery. The store manager observed the robbery from within a locked
office and called the police. While Sansbury incapacitated the cashier in the
restroom, Parson went to the pharmacy, placed the pharmacist on the ground
at gunpoint, and zip-tied his feet together. Sansbury and Parson then began
removing narcotics, including controlled substances, from behind the
pharmacy counter and putting them into a black bag.
When police officers arrived, they encountered Sansbury and Parson
attempting to exit the CVS. Sansbury and Parson retreated into the store
while the officers sought cover outside the front door and in the parking lot.
Sansbury and Parson then ran out of the store as they shot at the police
officers. One police officer sustained a gunshot wound to the shoulder area.
Parson sustained multiple gunshot wounds and was arrested immediately
following the robbery. Sansbury sustained a gunshot wound to his leg and was
arrested several hours later, hiding in the backyard of a nearby house.
II. Procedural History
Sansbury, pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to several charges
related to the robbery. 1 The presentence report (“PSR”) provided that the
base offense level for the robbery offenses was 20 under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(a).
In addition to several other enhancements not at issue on appeal, Sansbury
received a four-level enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) for physically
abducting a person “to facilitate the commission of the offense or to facilitate
escape” because he forced the cashier into the restroom and zip-tied his
hands together.
_____________________
1
Sansbury pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit a robbery involving controlled
substances, committing a robbery involving controlled substances, and discharging a
firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.
2
Case: 22-30114 Document: 00516733396 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/01/2023
No. 22-30114
Defense counsel filed a written objection to the abduction
enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A), arguing that Sansbury did not move
the cashier from place to place and that the movement of the cashier did not
enable him to commit the crime or facilitate his escape. The Government
responded that the forced physical movement of a victim from one location
to another inside of the store constituted an abduction and that it enabled the
robbers to commit the crime by preventing the victim from contacting police
officers or otherwise preventing the robbery from occurring, and it facilitated
the robbers’ escape from the store.
At the sentencing hearing, Sansbury renewed his objection to the
§ 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) enhancement. The district court overruled his objection,
finding that under the facts of the case, Sansbury abducted the victim within
the meaning of the Guidelines when he forced the victim to relocate from the
cashier area to the bathroom and zip-tied the victim’s hands. The district
court further found that the abduction facilitated the commission of the
offense and the escape as it prevented the cashier from contacting law
enforcement officers or otherwise preventing the robbery from occurring.
Sansbury was sentenced to a total of 241 months of imprisonment. Sansbury
timely appealed.
III. Legal Standard
Sentences are reviewed for reasonableness in light of the sentencing
factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
This court reviews the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing
Guidelines de novo. United States v. Buck, 847 F.3d 267, 276 (5th Cir. 2017).
The district court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error. United
States v. Gomez-Valle, 828 F.3d 324, 327 (5th Cir. 2016). “A factual finding
is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the record read as a whole.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
3
Case: 22-30114 Document: 00516733396 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/01/2023
No. 22-30114
IV. Discussion
The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a four-level enhancement “[i]f
any person was abducted to facilitate the commission of the offense or to
facilitate escape[.]” § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A). “Abducted” means that “a victim was
forced to accompany an offender to a different location.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1,
cmt. (n.1(A)); see § 2B3.1, cmt. (n.1). The commentary states, “[f]or
example, a bank robber’s forcing a bank teller from the bank into a getaway
car would constitute an abduction.” § 1B1.1, cmt. (n.1(A)).
Sansbury contends that the district court erred in applying the
abduction sentencing enhancement for three reasons. First, Sansbury argues
that he “did not force the victim to ‘accompany’ him anywhere” and that
forcing the cashier from the cashier area to the restroom “does not qualify as
the type of ‘forced accompaniment’ required by the abduction
enhancement.” We disagree. Sansbury pointed a gun at the cashier and
forced him to walk with Sansbury from the cashier area to the restroom,
where Sansbury zip-tied the cashier’s hands. Thus, Sansbury forced the
cashier to accompany him.
Second, Sansbury challenges the district court’s determination that
the “different location” requirement of § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) was satisfied when
he moved the cashier to the bathroom. This circuit has repeatedly held that
“the term ‘different location’ should be interpreted flexibly on a case by case
basis.” United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 469, 472 (5th Cir. 2010). Moreover,
the abduction enhancement is proper “even though the victim remained
within a single building.” Id. at 474. Here, Sansbury forced the cashier from
the cashier’s area at the front of the store to the restroom. Accordingly, the
different location requirement was also satisfied.
Third, Sansbury argues that moving the cashier to the restroom did
not facilitate or play a role in the commission of the robbery or his escape. We
4
Case: 22-30114 Document: 00516733396 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/01/2023
No. 22-30114
are unconvinced. Sansbury forced the cashier to the restroom and then zip-
tied him there so he would not interfere with the robbery or call the police.
This incapacitation of the cashier prevented the cashier from interfering in
or disrupting the robbery, thereby facilitating the commission of the offense.
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in imposing the
abduction enhancement.
V. Conclusion
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
5