United States v. Jaime Garcia, 857 F.3d 708

In Oct. 2015 Garcia and two codefendants robbed a Lubbock gun store while masked and armed; one defendant held a gun to an employee’s head and ordered him to get down; another guarded the exit; a third smashed a display case; shots were fired and defendants fled with nine firearms.
Garcia pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)) and to possessing/discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); he preserved appeal rights.
The PSR applied a two-level U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B) enhancement for "physical restraint," producing a 51–63 month range for the robbery count; without it range would be 41–51 months.
The government and defense objected at sentencing based on Fifth Circuit precedent (Hickman); the probation addendum urged the enhancement, citing the gun-to-head command, a defendant by the exit, and exchanged gunfire.
The district court adopted the addendum, applied the physical-restraint enhancement, and imposed 51 months for the Hobbs Act count plus the 120-month § 924(c) consecutive sentence.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed the § 924(c) conviction but held the physical-restraint enhancement was improperly applied and vacated the Hobbs Act sentence, remanding for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)	Garcia: Hobbs Act robbery lacks the element of use/threatened use of force; § 924(c)(3)(B) (residual/substantial-risk clause) is unconstitutionally vague	Government: Gonzalez-Longoria controls; § 924(c)(3)(B) is not vague; Hobbs Act robbery qualifies	Affirmed § 924(c) conviction; declined to revisit Gonzalez-Longoria, so conviction stands
Whether the § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B) two-level enhancement for "physical restraint" applies	Garcia: Actions (pointing a gun, ordering to get down, guarding exit, exchange of gunfire) are routine to armed robbery and do not amount to the sort of "physical restraint" contemplated by the Guidelines	Government (on appeal): Hickman and other circuits permit enhancement where exit blocked and victims instructed not to move; facts here support enhancement	Reversed application of the physical-restraint enhancement; district court erred and must resentence without that enhancement

United States v. Hickman, 151 F.3d 446 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding mere brandishing/commands in robbery do not support physical-restraint enhancement)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (striking down residual clause of ACCA as unconstitutionally vague)
United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (holding wording like § 924(c)(3)(B) is not unconstitutionally vague)
United States v. Miera, 539 F.3d 1232 (10th Cir. 2008) (upholding physical-restraint enhancement where defendant blocked exit and ordered victims not to move)
United States v. Stevens, 580 F.3d 718 (8th Cir. 2009) (upholding enhancement where victims were moved to confined locations at gunpoint and told to stay)
United States v. Anglin, 169 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 1999) (displaying a gun and ordering people down is insufficient alone to trigger physical-restraint enhancement)