BEAM, Circuit Judge.
Robert D. Elkins appeals from a 210-month sentence for his convictions on three counts of bank robbery and one count of armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d). He asserts several sentencing errors as grounds for reversal. First, Elkins alleges that the district court
Elkins entered guilty pleas for three counts of bank robbery and one count of armed bank robbery. Although Elkins and the government stipulated to the facts surrounding the four bank robberies, there were no plea agreements. Based on Elkins's criminal history category of VI, the PSR recommended a sentencing range of 168 to 210 months for each count.
Elkins objected to this calculation. At the sentencing hearing, the district court rejected Elkins's contentions and adopted the recommendations in the PSR. The court sentenced Elkins to concurrent terms of 210-months imprisonment for each count. Elkins appeals.
A. Abduction Enhancement
The district court applied a four-level enhancement for abduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A).
On the facts of this case, we find that the kidnapping enhancement was appropriate. In one of the bank robberies, Elkins held a bank patron at knife-point. After receiving money from the bank teller, Elkins forced the patron, still at knife-point, out of the bank and into the parking lot where he demanded the keys to the patron's vehicle. After the patron complied with Elkins's demands, Elkins released the patron and escaped in the vehicle.
The guidelines define abduction to mean: "that a victim was forced to accompany an offender to a different location. For example, a bank robber's forcing a bank teller from the bank into a getaway car would constitute an abduction" U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1. Comment. (n. 1). There is no doubt that Elkins forced the bank patron to another location, from the bank lobby to the parking lot, thus satisfying the guidelines definition of abduction. It is of no significance that the one type of conduct given as an example, forcing into a car, did not occur. Accordingly, we affirm the four-level enhancement for abduction.
B. Use Of A Weapon
Elkins next contends that the district court erred by concluding that he "used" rather than merely "brandished" a weapon in the course of the bank robbery. We reject
C. Downward Departures
Elkins contends that the district court erred by refusing to grant two separate requests for downward departures. He first claims that his criminal history category over-represents his prior criminal activity. Next, he asserts that the district court should have granted him a downward departure for extraordinary acceptance of responsibility. The refusal to grant a downward departure is an unreviewable exercise of discretion on the part of the sentencing judge. See United States v. Mahler, 984 F.2d 899, 903 (8th Cir.1993) ("The exercise of discretion by a district court to refuse to depart downward is nonreviewable by this Court.") (quotations omitted). Therefore, we must reject Elkins's assertion of error.
For the reasons stated above, the sentence imposed by the district court is affirmed.