United States v. Cook

850 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 2017) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · March 7, 2017

Summary

The Seventh Circuit affirmed Anthony Cook's convictions and sentence for Hobbs Act robbery and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. The court upheld sentencing enhancements for causing a loss to a financial institution and physically restraining a person during the robbery. It also rejected Cook's vagueness challenge and his argument that the physical-restraint enhancement impermissibly double-counted conduct.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Writing for the Court
Judge Kanne; Hamilton; Kanne; Manion
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
March 7, 2017
Procedural posture
Cook pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, then appealed the district court's application of sentencing-guidelines enhancements for causing a loss to a financial institution and physically restraining a person during a robbery.
Standard of review
The court reviewed de novo the district court's application of the sentencing guidelines.
Precedential value
Published and precedential Seventh Circuit opinion
Parties
Anthony Cook v. United States
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sentencing guidelinessentencingcriminal procedurestatutory interpretationdue process

Practice areas

criminal lawfederal sentencingsentencing guidelinesconstitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a check-cashing and financial-services business is a financial institution under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(1).
  2. Whether the term financial institution in U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(1) is unconstitutionally vague.
  3. Whether applying the physical-restraint enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B) impermissibly double counted conduct used in determining the underlying robbery sentence.

Holdings

  1. A business that offers an array of financial services, including check cashing, money transfers, money orders, and loans, falls within the plain meaning of financial institution under § 2B3.1(b)(1); therefore, the CFSC qualified and the enhancement was properly applied.
  2. The vagueness challenge fails because the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause.
  3. The physical-restraint enhancement was properly applied. The same conduct may determine the base offense level and trigger a cumulative enhancement unless the applicable guideline expressly prohibits double counting, and §§ 2B3.1(b)(4)(B) and its application notes contain no such prohibition.

Key quotations

We hold that the CFSC is a financial institution under § 2B3.1(b)(l). (at 333)
Instead, double counting is presumed permissible as a “mechanism employed by the guidelines in part to reflect the seriousness of the offense.” (at 334)
Because § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B) and its application notes, contain no explicit prohibition against double counting the act of physical restraint, the presumption of permissibility cannot be overcome. (at 334)

Factual background

Cook and three accomplices robbed a Community Financial Service Center in Milwaukee, taking approximately $337,100 in cash. During the robbery, Cook's accomplice Ferrell tackled the security guard, pointed a firearm at his face, and threatened to shoot him. The district court attributed Ferrell's conduct to Cook as relevant conduct and applied enhancements for taking property from a financial institution and physically restraining a person.

Procedural history

A grand jury indicted Cook on conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, Hobbs Act robbery, and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. Under a plea agreement, Cook pleaded guilty to the robbery and firearm counts, and the government dismissed the conspiracy count. The district court applied the two disputed enhancements, sentenced Cook to 60 months on the robbery count and 84 consecutive months on the firearm count, and ordered restitution; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…