Opinion
Submitted May 11, 1994.
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, No. CR-92-00570-EJG; Edward J. Garcia, District Judge, Presiding.
E.D.Cal.
AFFIRMED.
Before: HUG, D.W. NELSON, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.
Sharon Denise Brown appeals her 147-month sentence imposed following a guilty plea to three counts of bank robbery and one count of use of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), 924(c). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Brown's attorney concluded that no arguable issues for appeal exist. Brown's pro se supplemental brief challenges the district court's finding that she was not a minor participant in the robberies. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
We review for clear error the district court's denial of a minor participant adjustment. United States v. Pinkey, 15 F.3d 825, 827 (9th Cir.1994).
A defendant is entitled to a two-level downward adjustment if she was a minor participant. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). A minor participant is one who is "less culpable than most other participants," id. § 3B1.2, comment. (n. 3), but "merely being less culpable than one's co-participant does not automatically result in minor status." United States v. Andrus, 925 F.2d 335, 338 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 249 (1991). Similarly, a defendant is not entitled to the adjustment simply because someone else masterminded the crime. Pinkney, 15 F.3d at 828.
Brown contends that she is entitled to the adjustment because she merely followed the instructions of William Turner, her boyfriend and co-defendant. The district court denied the adjustment because Brown was a "full participant in the three robberies" and Turner "could not have pulled off the robberies without the defendant's assistance." The court noted that during the various robberies Brown had collected money from the teller's drawers while Turner held the tellers at gunpoint, simulated that she had a gun in her coat pocket, and disarmed a guard. Even though she may have been less culpable because she had followed Turner's orders, the court concluded that her role was not minor.
Bank employees reported that Brown "was unsure [of] what to do, and relied on [Turner] for direction," "the male suspect was in charge, and that he directed the defendant," and Brown "did not seem to know what she was doing." In her confession, Brown added that she abided Turner's demands because he supplied her with drugs and threatened to kill her.
We discern no error in these factual findings or the denial of the adjustment. See Pinkney, 15 F.3d at 828 (defendant was not a minor participant in robbery of mail carrier in which he had driven the armed robber to the scene, transported the stolen mail in his truck, and distributed checks for cashing); United States v. Belden, 957 F.2d 671, 676 (9th Cir.) (adjustment denied because defendant's participation was significant and important to the success of the operation), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 234 (1992).
The motion of counsel to withdraw is GRANTED and the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Our independent review pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988), discloses no issue for review.