United States v. Miller

Good Law
39 F. App'x 517
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 11, 2002No. 01-50425; D.C. No. CR-01-00118-ER-1California411 words

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…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.