What Not to Do While Robbing A Bank (Alternatively: How to Get Away with Abduction)

BACKGROUND

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines offer judges parameters by which to calculate sentencing based on the severity of the crime and the defendant’s criminal history. The Guidelines aim to assign fair, relatively consistent sentences across the country.

The Guidelines include enhancements, which are provisions that increase the length of a sentence for a particular crime. A robbery, as a base offense, is a level twenty. However, the robbery guideline enhances the base offense level by four if any person was abducted to facilitate commission of the offense or to facilitate escape. The guidelines commentary defines “abducted” to mean a person was forced to accompany an offender to a different location. What constitutes a different location is up for debate.

ISSUE

Under the Sentencing Guidelines, does a defendant “abduct” a victim during a robbery by making them move to another room within the same building?

THE SPLIT

Rather than a two-way split, the various positions taken by circuits seem to fit into three categories. The Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits all concur that different rooms within the same store do not qualify as “different locations” under the enhancement. The Fourth and Fifth Circuits disagree. The Third and Tenth Circuit fall somewhere in-between, having adopted a novel three-prong test to make such a determination.

Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits

In 2019, the Sixth Circuit became the latest to join the split in United States v. Hill. In this case, the robbers forced employees within a cellphone store to move from the sales area to the back room in order to tie them up. The district court applied the four-level “abduction” enhancement, which increased the defendant’s sentence by approximately two years.

When the defendant appealed his sentence, the Sixth Circuit overturned the enhancement. The court held that “the phrase ‘different location’ is best read to refer to a place different from the store that is being robbed. And a store’s back room does not qualify as a ‘different location’ from the store.” The court provided multiple reasons for their finding.

Amongst them, the court explained that ordinary speakers rarely specify the exact location within a store that was robbed, but rather generalize one location. For example, in common speech, one does not detail that the sales area of a store or vault at the bank was robbed, but rather simply state that a store or bank was robbed. Additionally, the court expressed that if the Sentencing Commission meant for such a short movement to count, it had no reason to add the phrase “different location.” Moreover, the example in the Guidelines commentary is of a robber forcing a bank teller into a getaway car—a location different than the store itself.

The Eleventh Circuit in 2013 reached the same conclusion in United States v. Whatley. The circuit provided further reasoning that “different location” must be read in light of “abduction,” explaining that a normal speaker “would conclude that [the robber] had taken the [employees] hostage during the commission of the . . . robberies but would not describe those employees as having been abducted or kidnapped.”

Similarly, in 2010, the Seventh Circuit held in United States v. Eubanks that dragging a store employee about six feet from back room to front room of a store was not abduction, stating that “[t]o find otherwise would virtually ensure that any movement of a victim from one room to another within the same building, without any other aggravating circumstances, would result in an abduction enhancement.” However, the court did note that each finding was a fact specific determination. The Sixth Circuit has agreed and held the same limitation applies.

Fourth and Fifth Circuits

In 2017, the Fifth Circuit joined the Fourth in finding that different areas within the same store do qualify as a “different location” and thus require an enhancement. In United States v. Buck, a robber forced store employees from the front of the store to the back. In upholding the abduction enhancement, the Court stated that the term “different location” must be interpreted with flexibility. The Court wrote: “we are satisfied that the conspirators forcing [employees] to move from the front of the stores to the backs was sufficient to make the abduction enhancement applicable.”

In United States v. Osborne, the Fourth Circuit also deemed the pharmacy section and the store area of a Walgreens to be discrete locations. Like the Eleventh Circuit, the court looked to ordinary language, but it reached a different conclusion: “It is in ordinary parlance to say that the pharmacy section and the store area are ‘different locations’ within the Walgreens building. This is especially true in view of the fact that the pharmacy section and the store area are divided by a counter, as well as a secured door intended to be passable only by authorized persons via keypad.”

Third and Tenth Circuits

The Third Circuit has taken a unique approach by creating a three-prong test to make a determination of whether to apply the robbery enhancement. In United States v. Reynos, the Court closely examined the language of the enhancement and engineered three predicates accordingly:

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 offender’s escape.

Following this test, the Court concluded that an abduction occurred where a robber, wielding a pistol, forced pizza shop employees from where they were hiding in the restaurant bathroom to the cash register area—a distance of approximately thirty-four feet—so that they could assist him in opening the cash register.

In 2017, the Tenth Circuit adopted this test as well in United States v. Archuleta. Though the test is meant to be a neutral arbitrator, it tends to favor using the enhancement.   

LOOKING FORWARD

The broad inconsistencies among the circuits frustrate the very purpose of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Varying interpretations continue to result in sentencing discrepancies across the country and are not limited to just the robbery enhancement. It has become clear that sentencing disparities due to the complexity of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, coupled with judicial discretion, need to be addressed. While the Supreme Court could take up and address each incongruity, this solution would be inefficient and result in many defendants spending a disproportionate amount of time in prison. Rather, it may be time for a complete overhaul of the guidelines and fundamental criminal sentencing reform.

In the meantime, defendants may want to take note of what not to do during a robbery. 

 

 

 

 

Accuracy v. Finality: The Implications of Habeas Rights Based on AEDPA Interpretations

BACKGROUND

With the release of the film Just Mercy, the debate over balancing the prevention of wrongful convictions against the assurance of finality in serious criminal matters has once again come into the spotlight. This dispute is not only receiving national attention in pop culture, but is also making headlines in the judicial field with the emergence of a new circuit split.

A habeas petition is a method invoked by prisoners seeking an early release by challenging the legitimacy of their detention. In 1996, the ability to file habeas petitions was limited with the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). Under AEDPA, a prisoner has just one opportunity to file a motion to vacate the earlier sentence. A second opportunity is permitted only when the Supreme Court adopts a new and favorable rule of constitutional law. Prisoners are also restricted to just one habeas petition, unless they can demonstrate that AEDPA’s remedy is “inadequate or ineffective.”

THE ISSUE

Can the AEDPA remedy be considered inadequate or ineffective, thereby circumventing the single habeas restriction, when a new rule of statutory construction is adopted by a circuit court?

THE SPLIT

In Hueso v. Barnhart (2020), the Sixth Circuit split from the Fourth Circuit, interpreting AEDPA to increase restrictions on habeas rights. Hueso was convicted of drug trafficking in Alaska. He was initially sentenced to 10 years in prison; however, the term was doubled under a federal sentencing law. The year after his conviction, the Supreme Court rejected the interpretation permitting doubling. At the time, Hueso’s counsel had already filed a Motion to Vacate challenging evidence, which was rejected. Counsel then filed a habeas petition based on the Supreme Court ruling. The court denied the petition based on Sixth Circuit precedent that barred habeas cases from entertaining challenges based on sentencing. However, in 2016, the Sixth Circuit overturned its previous holding, thereby permitting sentencing-based habeas petitions.

As a result, Hueso’s counsel filed another habeas petition, but this time it was rejected under AEDPA. Hueso appealed to the Sixth Circuit, arguing that he should be permitted to file a second habeas under AEDPA because the AEDPA remedy was inadequate and ineffective. The Sixth Circuit denied the appeal on two bases. First, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that the Supreme Court ruling rejecting double sentencing could not be introduced in a subsequent challenge as the decision was made while Hueso’s first Motion to Vacate was pending. The court reasoned that the decision was available at the time of the challenge and, therefore, the failure to mention it barred a second attempt. Second, the Sixth Circuit held that the second habeas petition was correctly denied because the basis of the petition centered on a circuit court decision to permit sentencing-based habeas petitions. The Sixth Circuit rationalized that this decision was not constitutional law, as required under AEDPA, and thus could not be a basis for seeking to file subsequent petitions.

The Sixth Circuit’s reasoning diverged from the Fourth Circuit’s prior interpretation in United States v. Wheeler (2018). Wheeler was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of a firearm. Wheeler entered into a plea deal, agreeing to an enhanced sentence with a mandatory minimum of 120 months. The next year, Wheeler’s counsel filed a Motion to Vacate, citing both inefficient counsel and the fact that the conviction did not qualify for an enhanced sentence. The Motion was denied based on Fourth Circuit precedent allowing a maximum aggravated sentence to be imposed. Wheeler’s counsel sought to appeal by filing a certificate of appealability. While the appeal was pending, the previous precedent relied upon was overturned by the Fourth Circuit with a finding that a district court could only consider the maximum sentence that the particular defendant could receive in enhanced sentence matters. However, Wheeler’s appeal was still denied based on the reasoning that the new decision could not be applied retroactively.

Wheeler’s counsel subsequently filed a habeas petition, arguing that the AEDPA remedy was inadequate and ineffective. In this case, the Fourth Circuit upheld the inadequacy on appeal. The court reasoned:

“[W]e conclude that [AEDPA] is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a sentence when: (1) at the time of sentencing, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established the legality of the sentence; subsequent to the prisoner’s direct appeal and first … motion, the aforementioned settled substantive law changed and was deemed to apply retroactively on collateral review; (3) the prisoner is unable to meet the gatekeeping requirements … for second or successive motions; and (4) due to this retroactive change, the sentence now presents an error sufficiently grave to be deemed a fundamental defect.”

LOOKING FORWARD

Following the Wheeler decision, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States, filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. The petition was denied in March 2019, before the split emerged. The developing split has the potential for unfortunate consequences for prisoners based solely on the region they are imprisoned in. The split will inevitably result in disparate results concerning a prisoner’s rights to seek relief and retrial in the case of wrongful convictions. In the Sixth Circuit, Judge Karen Nelson Moore acknowledged the disparity in her dissent, pointing out that Hueso would “almost certainly prevail” had he attacked his sentence the first time, and noting that, as a result of the majority interpretation, Hueso would be spending another decade incarcerated.

To Be Eligible or Ineligible: The Implications of Service Animals When Donating Plasma

Background

The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) prohibits discrimination based on disability. All places of public accommodations are subject to the ADA, and 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(F) lists the service-based entities that are considered public accommodations for purposes of the Act, including a catch-all of “other service establishments.” The list includes: “a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment.”

Plasma centers collect donated plasma from humans to be used in medical therapy and research. People who give plasma are paid in return for their donation. Many plasma centers have policies barring ineligible donors, basing eligibility on things like medical history, prescribed medication, and the recency of a new tattoo or piercing, or other “risky” activities. In recent years, one specific plasma center – CSL Plasma, Inc. – has become subject to controversy for its safety policy, which bars all who use service animals for anxiety from eligibility.

The Issue

Are plasma centers considered “service establishments” and therefore subject to the ADA’s prohibition on discrimination for public accommodations?

The Split

The Fifth Circuit has split from the Third and Tenth Circuits on the issue of whether plasma centers are considered service establishments. All three circuits considered the dictionary definitions of the words “service” and “establishment,” referencing Webster’s Third International Dictionary. According to the dictionary, “service” means “conduct or performance that assists or benefits someone or something” and “establishment” means a “place of business.” The issue of whether a plasma center is a place of business is not contested.

 In Silguero v. CSL Plasma, Inc (2018), the Fifth Circuit held that plasma centers are not service establishments, and therefore not subject to the ADA’s prohibition on discrimination. The court first looked at the dictionary definition and reasoned that donors receive no detectable benefit from the act of donation. As Webster’s definition considers a service to be a benefit received, the Fifth Circuit held that the plasma collection cannot be considered a “service.”

In addition, the Fifth Circuit implemented ejusdem generis, a canon of statutory interpretation that interprets a general term in a statute by looking to the preceding examples. The court found that the examples prior to “service establishment,” which included hospitals, barbershops, lawyers, and gas stations among the many, all offered a public a service in exchange for monetary compensation, whereas plasma centers pay the public for donations. As plasma centers do not receive money from the public, and instead give money to the public, the Fifth Circuit further confirmed its holding that plasma centers are not service establishments that must follow the ADA.

The Tenth Circuit disagreed with this interpretation in Levorsen v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc. (2016) and found plasma centers to be service establishments. Instead, the Tenth Circuit reasoned that the “service” requirement was fulfilled as the donors who provided plasma for medical use were indeed “benefited” by the monetary compensation they received in exchange, whether the benefit was altruistic or pecuniary gain.

The Third Circuit agreed with the Tenth and expanded its reasoning in Matheis v. CSL Plasma, Inc (2019). The Third Circuit focused its analysis on the benefit aspect, affirming that the receipt of money is a clear benefit to the donor. Moreover, the Third Circuit diverged even further from the Fifth Circuit, countering the assertion that a public service must involve the receipt of compensation from customers, stating that this emphasis on the direction of compensation is “unhelpful.”

To support this argument, the Third Circuit referenced the fact that § 12181(7)(F) includes “bank” as a service entity. The Third Circuit argued this inclusion made it clear that the Fifth Circuit’s narrow reading was flawed, as customers of banks receive compensation for using the bank’s services. In regard to plasma centers, the Third Circuit held that these facilities “[offer] a service to the public, the extracting of plasma for money, with the plasma then used by the center in its business of supplying a vital product to healthcare providers. That both the center and members of the public derive economic value from the center’s provision and public’s use of a commercial service does not divorce the center from the other listed examples in § 12181(7)(F).”

Accordingly, the Third Circuit ruled that plasma centers were subject to the ADA. The Third Circuit went on to hold that CSL’s service animal policy was not a valid safety rule as its reasoning was speculative and generalized “widely about individuals who use service animals, all of whom CSL apparently views as people with ‘severe anxiety,’” rather than based on medical or scientific evidence.

Looking Forward

The circuit split on the matter of “service establishments” is troubling. Until this split is reconciled, it is possible that other establishments could argue exemption from discrimination on the basis of disability due to the narrow reading of “service” in the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning. It is important to ensure that establishments are not making safety assessments based on generalizations or stereotypes surrounding disability, and that service is not denied to owners of canine caregivers or other service animals.