U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3
Restraint of Victim
If a victim was physically restrained in the course of the offense, increase by 2 levels.
Commentary
Application Notes:
1. "Physically restrained" is defined in the Commentary to §1B1.1 (Application Instructions). 2. Do not apply this adjustment where the offense guideline specifically incorporates this factor, or where the unlawful restraint of a victim is an element of the offense itself (e.g., this adjustment does not apply to offenses covered by §2A4.1 (Kidnapping, Abduction, Unlawful Restraint)).Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 1989 (amendments 249 and 250); November 1, 1991 (amendment 413); November 1, 2025 (amendment 836).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 131
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: United States v. Conatser, 514 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Conatser, 514 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2008). “1(b)(1)(B); and by two levels because the victim was physically restrained in the cell during the offense, USSG § 3A1.3. [5] With a total offense level of 27 and a criminal history score of 0, the sentencing judge determined the advisory guidelines range to be 70 to 87 months.”
United States v. Angeles-Mendoza, 407 F.3d 742 (5th Cir. 2005). “8 Although the physical restraint of the smuggled aliens during the commission of the offense may have been appropriately used to grant an upward enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3 — the guidelines provision dealing specifically with physical restraint of victims — there is no…”
United States of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Ronald Joseph Clayton, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, 172 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 1999). “Finally, in sentencing Clayton, the district court rejected the government’s argument that under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3 Clayton’s offense level should be adjusted upward by two-levels because he assaulted Freeman while she was handcuffed.”
United States v. Salim, 287 F. Supp. 2d 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “Restraint of Officer — U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3. E. Recruitment and Supervision — U.”
United States v. Mark Wesley Johnson,defendant-Appellant, 187 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 1999). “Second, the government asked for a two level enhancement based on U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3 because a victim was physically restrained “in the course of the offense.”
United States v. Salim, 549 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2008). “2, and for “Restraint of Victim,” U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3. On cross-appeal, the United States contends that the district court erred in failing to apply the “Terrorism” enhancement of U.”
United States v. Carson, 560 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2009). “1999), the Fifth Circuit examined a similar situation, wherein “[t]he district court concluded that because [the victim] had been lawfully restrained (handcuffed) during the course of a legitimate arrest — a restraint that was separate from and not done to facilitate the…”
United States v. Corey Allen Wilson, A/K/A Jugs, 198 F.3d 467 (4th Cir. 1999). “(b)(4)(B), or under the analogous Restraint of Victim Guideline, USSG § 3A1.3 (“If a victim was physically restrained in the course of the offense, increase by 2 levels.”
United States v. Michael J. Mikalajunas, United States of Am. v. Craig E. Largent, United States of Am. v. Michael J. Mikalajunas, 186 F.3d 490 (4th Cir. 1999). “Lar-gent’s plea agreement also stipulated that an enhancement for physical restraint of the victim was appropriate under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3. At sentencing, the district court enhanced Appellees’ offense levels by two levels for restraint of the victim in addition to making other…”
United States v. Serrata, 425 F.3d 886 (10th Cir. 2005). “Next, the court imposed a two-level increase for restraint of the victim under USSG § 3A1.3, and a two-level increase for-an aggravating role as an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of criminal activity under USSG § 3B1.”
United States v. Holbert, 285 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2002). “The court added another two points under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3, after determining that on August 12, 1999, Mr.”
United States v. Drew, Wilbert Jerome, 200 F.3d 871 (D.C. Cir. 2000). “1, of the Guidelines; (3) in violating his right to due process by sentencing him based on attempted first degree murder supported by hearsay evidence; and (4) in applying the two-level enhancement for restraint of victim pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3. We conclude that, because…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.