United States v. Aaron Redmond, 965 F.3d 416

On Feb. 14, 2017 Aaron Redmond robbed a Comerica Bank at gunpoint, ordered one teller to kneel, took money, and told two tellers to go into an adjacent room, close the door, and count to 100.
Redmond pleaded guilty to bank robbery. The PSR recommended a 4-level Guidelines enhancement for an “abduction” under U.S.S.G. §2B3.1(b)(4)(A).
Redmond objected, arguing he did not “accompany” the tellers because he did not go with them into the adjacent room; the government urged a flexible view of “accompany.”
The district court overruled the objection, applied the enhancement, then upwardly varied from an advisory range of 78–97 months to a 180-month sentence, stating the sentence would be the same even without the abduction enhancement.
The Fifth Circuit held the enhancement was erroneous because “accompany” requires the offender to go with the victim, but found the error harmless because the district court would have imposed the same 180-month sentence based on §3553(a) factors (prior violent conduct and danger to the community) and affirmed.

Issue	Redmond's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the §2B3.1(b)(4)(A) abduction enhancement applies	No abduction because Redmond did not "accompany" the tellers into the adjacent room	The enhancement applies under a flexible reading; close proximity and control suffice	Enhancement was applied in error: “accompany” requires the defendant to go with the victim when the victim moves
Whether the Guidelines error was harmless	Error affected range and sentence, so remand required	District court made clear it would impose the same 180‑month sentence for the same §3553(a) reasons even without the enhancement	Harmless: government convincingly showed the court would have imposed the same sentence for the same reasons
Whether the 180‑month sentence is substantively reasonable	Above‑Guidelines variance (286% over top) is unreasonable and court failed to give Guidelines sufficient weight	District court considered §3553(a) factors (violent history, other robberies, pending aggravated assault) and adequately justified the variance	No abuse of discretion; sentence substantively reasonable given the record

Whitfield v. United States, 574 U.S. 265 (defining "accompany" as to "go with" and holding movement "with" the robber satisfies statute)
United States v. Ibarra-Luna, 628 F.3d 712 (standard for harmlessness of Guidelines calculation errors)
United States v. Richardson, 676 F.3d 491 (evidence requirement to show district court would have imposed same sentence despite Guidelines error)
United States v. Martinez-Romero, 817 F.3d 917 (example where court’s assurance proved unreliable and remand was required)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (deference to district court’s sentencing judgment when reviewing variances)
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762 (preservation of substantive-reasonableness challenge when defendant seeks lower sentence)
United States v. Smith, 822 F.3d 755 (discussing forced movement within a building and Fifth Circuit’s flexible approach to "different location")
United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714 (upholding large upward variance where §3553(a) factors supported it)