Whether the failure to follow the commentary's abduction definition engendered a broad circuit split — and if so, do it show that the victims were 'abducted' within the meaning of § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A)?

QUESTION PRESENTED | Under § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G”), a fourlevel increase applies to a defendant’s offense level, “ if any person was | abducted to facilitate commission of the offense or to facilitate escape.”And the | guideline commentary defines “abducted” as follows: Abducted means that a victim was forced to accompany an offender to a different location. For example, a bank robber’s forcing a bank teller from the bank into a getaway car would constitute an abduction. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 cmt.n.1(A). (emphasis added). Federal courts have interpreted the term “different location as used in 1B1.’s cmt.n.1(A), in a way that has developed a split of authority over whether the forced movement of victims from one room or area to another room or area within the same building constitute an abduction for purposes of § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A). Accordingly, if Commentary in the Guideline Manual that interprets or explains a guideline of authoritative. Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 386,38 (1993). To read “different location” in a way that does not comports with rest of the commentary’s abducted definition would raise a “authoritative concern” that “defies judicial proceedings.” A court would apply the four-level abduction enhancement to defendants where the only minimum movement was within a single building. The case raises the following important issues: Whether the failure to follow the commentary’s abduction definition engendered a broad circuit split — and if so, do it show that the victims were “’abducted within the meaning of § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A)? | |