Scope of Physical‐Restraint and Planning Enhancements under U.S.S.G. §§3A1.3 & 2A2.2(b)(1)

Introduction

The Second Circuit’s summary order in United States v. Rivas, No. 24‐1312‐cr (2d Cir. May 23, 2025), clarifies two important Sentencing Guidelines enhancements: the physical‐restraint enhancement under U.S.S.G. §3A1.3 and the more‐than‐minimal‐planning enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2A2.2(b)(1). Luis Rivas, an MS-13 affiliate awaiting trial on state charges, pleaded guilty to assault in aid of racketeering (18 U.S.C. §1959(a)(3)) after he and two co‐conspirators attacked an inmate in the Manhattan Detention Complex. On appeal, Rivas contested both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his 70‐month sentence, which fell at the low end of a 70–87‐month Guideline range. The Second Circuit affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The district court applied two two‐level enhancements to Rivas’s base offense level under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines: a physical‐restraint enhancement (U.S.S.G. §3A1.3) and a more‐than‐minimal‐planning enhancement (U.S.S.G. §2A2.2(b)(1)). Rivas received an advisory range of 70 to 87 months’ imprisonment and was sentenced to 70 months, with ten months running concurrently with other federal sentences. On appeal, Rivas argued that both enhancements were wrongly applied and that his overall sentence was substantively unreasonable. The Second Circuit disagreed and affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008, en banc): Established the benchmarks for procedural and substantive reasonableness, including the need to calculate the Guidelines range correctly, consider §3553(a) factors, and adequately explain any departure.
• United States v. Cramer, 777 F.3d 597 (2d Cir. 2015): Clarified that factual findings underpinning Guidelines enhancements are reviewed for clear error; a finding is only reversed when the appellate court is left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
• United States v. Rosario, 7 F.3d 319 (2d Cir. 1993): Held that a physical‐restraint enhancement does not constitute impermissible double counting so long as restraint is not an element of the underlying offense.
• United States v. Taylor, 961 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2020): Approved enhancement for physical restraint where victims were locked in or secured to facilitate an assault.
• United States v. Muzio, 966 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2020): Reaffirmed the deferential standard for reviewing substantive reasonableness of a sentence.

Legal Reasoning

1. Physical‐Restraint Enhancement (U.S.S.G. §3A1.3)
The Court applied a two‐level enhancement because: (a) Rivas shut the victim’s cell door during the beating, and (b) a co‐defendant knelt on the victim, forcibly restraining him. The Guidelines commentary defines “physically restrained” as “forcible restraint such as being tied, bound, or locked up.” Neither 18 U.S.C. §1959(a)(3) nor the underlying New York assault statute requires restraint as an element. Under Rosario, adding this enhancement does not double count offense conduct when restraint is a distinct aggravating factor. The Court found no clear error in the district court’s factual findings based on jail surveillance footage.

2. More‐Than‐Minimal‐Planning Enhancement (U.S.S.G. §2A2.2(b)(1))
The Court endorsed the district court’s two‐level enhancement for planning, where “more than minimal planning” means more orchestration than a “run-of-the-mill” assault. The district court relied on:

• Coordinated signals in surveillance video;
• A pre‐attack phone call discussing the assault;
• Preparation of a makeshift knife.

These facts, plus the co‐defendants’ MS-13 membership and admissions that the assault furthered their gang objectives, sufficed to show planning beyond an impulsive incident. Rivas failed to identify any clear error in these findings.

3. Substantive Reasonableness
Under Cavera and Muzio, a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. Rivas pointed to no extraordinary circumstances that would render a 70‐month term “shockingly high.” Having found no procedural error, the Court also found no substantive abuse of discretion.

Impact

This ruling provides clarity on two recurring sentencing questions:

• Locking a victim in a cell, or any forcible barrier to escape, qualifies as “physical restraint” under §3A1.3 even if assault inherently limits movement.
• Planning enhancements under §2A2.2(b)(1) may rest on coordinated signaling, pre‐assault discussions, and use of weapons—without requiring a lengthy or elaborate conspiracy.

Practitioners should ensure that sentencing submissions address these enhancements head‐on, and district courts will feel confirmed in applying them where evidence shows restraint and rudimentary coordination.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Clear Error Review: Appellate courts defer to factual findings unless they are plainly wrong; mere disagreement is insufficient.
• Double Counting: Enhancements cannot punish the same conduct twice, but may apply if the aggravating factor is separate from the offense’s elements.
• §3553(a) Factors: Statutory factors guiding sentence length, including the nature of the offense, history of the defendant, deterrence, and public protection.
• Summary Order: Non‐precedential decisions of the Second Circuit may still guide lower courts on procedural and substantive standards.

Conclusion

United States v. Rivas affirms the broad applicability of the physical‐restraint and more‐than‐minimal‐planning enhancements. By upholding the district court’s careful factfinding and §3553(a) analysis, the Second Circuit reinforces the principle that forcible barriers and basic orchestration materially aggravate an assault in aid of racketeering. This decision will shape sentencing practice by signaling that even modest physical restraints and minimal coordination can—and should—be reflected in the advisory Guidelines range.