United States v. Bullington

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
JUN 16 1998
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 97-8076
(D.C. No. 97-CR-27-D)
TRAVIS BULLINGTON, (D. Wyo.)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges. **
Defendant-appellant Travis Bullington pleaded guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), one count of conspiracy to commit
bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2113(a), and three counts of bank robbery, 18
U.S.C. § 2113. He was sentenced to 137 months imprisonment to be followed by
three years supervised release. In determining his sentence, the district court
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This 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.
**
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
enhanced his base offense level by two levels pursuant to USSG § 3B1.1 because
Mr. Bullington was an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor, and it is this two-
level enhancement which Mr. Bullington challenges on appeal. Our jurisdiction
arises under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we affirm.
Mr. Bullington argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the
district court’s finding that he was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor
under USSG § 3B1.1(c). We review the district court’s factual findings for clear
error, see United States v. Albers, 93 F.3d 1469, 1486-87 (10th Cir. 1996), and
find none here. The record contains ample evidence that Mr. Bullington exercised
control over the other three co-conspirators. Mr. Bullington initially suggested
robbing banks as a way to make money, see IV R. at 37, was primarily responsible
for the manner in which the robberies were executed, particularly the Worland
robbery, see IV R. at 12, 38-39, and was considered the “shot caller” by Aaron
Hopkins, the other co-conspirator most intimately associated with the planning
and execution of the robberies. See IV R. at 53-54.
As to Mr. Bullington’s argument that the district court failed to make
sufficiently specific findings, the record indicates the district court considered the
applicable factors under USSG § 3B1.1(c), specifically found that Mr. Bullington
was a “co-leader” of the conspiracy and determined that the two level
enhancement was appropriate. See IV R at 63-65. Mr. Bullington’s reliance on
-2-
United States v. Roberts, 14 F.3d 502, 522 (10th Cir. 1993), is thus misplaced, as
the district court made specific findings relating to Mr. Bullington’s role as an
organizer or leader. See id. at 522-23 (stating that district court provided only a
“character sketch” which did not “fulfil the specific criteria mandated by
§ 3B1.1(a)”). It follows that the district court’s findings, supported by the record,
were sufficient to support the § 3B1.1(c) enhancement.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-