United States v. Reynos
680 F.3d 283
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Reynos and another robber committed Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy to rob a pizza shop; Reynos pled guilty to all counts including use of a firearm during a crime of violence; the PSR recommended a 4-level abduction enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) and a 3-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility; the District Court applied the 4-level abduction enhancement and sentenced Reynos to 157 months plus a 120-month consecutive term for § 924(c).
- The PSR calculated base offense level 20, with total 21 after the abduction adjustment; Reynos’ criminal history category moved from III to I, producing a 37–46 month range before the 120-month mandatory term.
- Reynos challenged the abduction enhancement on procedural grounds and argued “double counting” due to the § 924(c) firearm enhancement.
- The Third Circuit reviewed for procedural reasonableness, applying its standard for significant procedural error and substantial reasonableness, treating Reynos’ claims as waived beyond those two issues.
- The court concluded the abduction enhancement was properly applied and did not constitute impermissible double counting, affirming the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether abduction enhancement applies | Reynos argues there was no use of force, no accompaniment, and no location change. | Government contends force (brandishing), accompaniment, and change in location were proven. | Abduction enhancement applied. |
| Whether moving within a small building constitutes a change in location | Moving 34 feet within Ed's Pizza House is not a change of location. | Flexible, case-by-case interpretation allows a change in location within a single building. | Change in location found; district court's ruling affirmed. |
| Whether use of abduction enhancement amounts to double counting with § 924(c) | Abduction enhancement premised on handgun use duplicates the § 924(c) conviction. | Enhancements address different harms; not prohibited by double-counting rules. | Not impermissible double counting; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cunningham, 201 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2000) (interprets use of force and abduction concepts in context of guidelines)
- United States v. Hawkins, 87 F.3d 722 (5th Cir. 1996) (flexible interpretation of ‘different location’ within a single structure)
- United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2008) (movements within a store can constitute abduction where necessary to facilitate crime/escape)
- United States v. Whooten, 279 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2002) (purpose of abduction enhancement includes protection from victim isolation)
- United States v. Fisher, 502 F.3d 293 (3d Cir. 2007) (double-counting rules do not bar applying multiple guidelines to distinct harms)
- United States v. Wong, 3 F.3d 667 (3d Cir. 1993) (discusses handling of related offense characteristics in sentencing)
- United States v. Carter, 410 F.3d 942 (7th Cir. 2005) (illustrates expansive view of restraint and force beyond literal tying)