
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kendrick Andrew GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-20435
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 16, 2011.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Eric Joseph Davis, Davis & Associates, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Kendrick Andrew Green appeals the 165-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for aggravated bank robbery, bank robbery, and brandishment of a firearm during a crime of violence.

Green argues that the district court erred by applying a four-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) based on a conspirator’s abduction of a bank teller during the bank robbery committed by Green, the conspirator, and others. Where, as here, the defendant objects to a sentencing enhancement in the district court, this court reviews the district court’s interpretation and application of the Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Gonzalez, 445 F.3d 815, 817 (5th Cir.2006).

Green’s contention that the teller was not abducted because she was not isolated and because she was moved within the same room is without merit. The facts in the presentence report and the exhibits introduced at sentencing provide evidence that the teller was moved from her teller station to the bank’s vault, so that the conspirator could rob the vault, which was located in a separate area, down a hallway, and around the corner from the teller area. Additionally, the vault was located behind the teller area and out of public view. Thereafter, the teller was moved from the vault area to the back door of the bank so that Green and the conspirator could escape. There was therefore no error in the district court’s conclusion that Green’s conspirator abducted the bank teller. See United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 469, 474 (5th Cir.2010).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     