United States v. Miller
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
William Miller pleaded guilty to armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a);(d), conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 371 , and use of a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e). On appeal, he challenges his sentence, arguing that the district erred by adjusting his offense level upward based on findings of “physical restraint of a victim” during the robbery and “reckless endangerment” during flight from the police. We affirm.
DISCUSSION
1. Physical Restraint
The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a two-level increase in a defendant’s offense level if during a robbery “any person was physically restrained to facilitate commission of the offense____” U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B). Miller argues that the acts of forcing the bank’s security guard to his knees and holding a shotgun at his head during the course of the robbery do not constitute physical restraint. We disagree. The enhancement applies whenever there is a “sustained focus on the restrained person.” See United States v. Parker, 241 F.3d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir.2001) (emphasis deleted). That requirement is satisfied here because the gun was held to the guard’s head during the duration…