This note examines the federal circuit courts’ differing approaches to interpreting the robbery abduction enhancement in the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Specifically, this note sets forth how the Sixth Circuit’s strict method of textual interpretation in United States v. Hill led to the erroneous holding that the term “different location” refers to “a place different from the store that is being robbed.” This note argues the court should have taken a more holistic interpretative approach, taking the underlying purpose of the Guidelines into account.
Defining “Different”–How Distinctive Methods of Textual Interpretation Led to the Abduction Enhancement Circuit Split,
2022 Pepp. L. Rev.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol2022/iss1/1