United States v. Taylor , 16 F. App'x 879 ( 2001 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 1 2001
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 00-6435
(D.C. No. 00-CR-96-R)
LARRY LEE TAYLOR, JR., (W.D. Okla.)
a/k/a Fat Cuzz,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , BALDOCK , Circuit Judges, and BRORBY , Senior Circuit
Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
On August 16, 2000, Larry Lee Taylor, Jr. entered a guilty plea to robbery
by force while using a firearm, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) (count
one), and brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, a violation of
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (count two). The district court sentenced Taylor to
sixty months on count one and eighty-four months on count two, with the
sentences to run consecutively. Taylor appeals from this sentence, arguing that
the district court should have awarded him a reduction in base offense level. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and affirm.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred by refusing to
grant Taylor a two-level reduction in base offense level as a minor participant
pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2(b). “Section 3B1.2
provides the district court with discretion to grant a base offense level reduction
if it finds a defendant is less culpable relative to other participants in a given
offense.” United States v. Santistevan, 39 F.3d 250, 254 (10th Cir. 1994).
The facts surrounding Taylor’s role in the crime are undisputed. On April
25, 2000, Taylor drove with Esi McNeal and Nedra Hendricks to the All America
Bank in Oklahoma City. Hendricks went in the bank to look for security guards
or male employees. After Hendricks returned, Taylor went in the bank to again
check for security guards. The three then drove around for approximately twenty
minutes before returning to the bank. Next, McNeal and Taylor, armed with
-2-
handguns, entered the bank. McNeal pointed his gun at a teller and ordered bank
employees to give him the money from the cash drawers. While McNeal was
collecting the money, Taylor held two female bank employees at gunpoint.
McNeal and Taylor left the bank with $11,557.00, and Hendricks drove them all
to an apartment where they divided the proceeds.
We review the district court’s decision for clear error, because the court’s
determination that Taylor was more than a minor participant is a finding of fact.
See United States v. Onheiber, 173 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 1999). Under the
clearly erroneous standard, a district court’s findings of fact will not be reversed
unless they are without support in the record, or if after reviewing the evidence,
the court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made. Tosco Corp. v. Koch Indus., Inc., 216 F.3d 886, 892 (10th Cir. 2000).
Moreover, “a defendant has the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that he is entitled to a reduction in base offense level under § 3B1.2.”
Onheiber, 173 F.3d at 1258.
In his objection to the presentence investigation report, Taylor attempted to
portray his role as minor in comparison to McNeal’s role as leader of the group.
In rejecting the contention that Taylor was a minor participant, the district court
focused on the fact that Taylor had held bank employees at gunpoint during the
robbery. Other facts also support the conclusion that Taylor’s role was not minor.
-3-
Before the robbery, Taylor entered the bank to look for security guards. After the
robbery, Taylor received over half the stolen money. The record amply supports
the district court’s determination that Taylor’s role in the offense was not minor
or minimal. The district court’s findings are not clearly erroneous.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District
of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby
Senior Circuit Judge
-4-