United States v. Bailey

1 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-51132
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TIMOTHY ANDRE BAILEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-00-CR-51-3
--------------------
June 6, 2002
Before DUHÉ, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Timothy Andre Bailey has filed an appeal of his conviction and
sentence for aiding and abetting a bank robbery in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113(a) & (d). Bailey argues that the district court
abused its discretion in refusing to give an aiding and abetting
jury instruction that he requested. In particular, Bailey
requested that the district court instruct the jury that the
Government must establish that he knew that the principal was going

-- 1 of 2 --

2
to rob a bank. Bailey did not cite any legal authority from this
circuit which supports his argument. Because the instruction
proposed by Bailey was not a correct statement of the law in the
circuit and because the district court’s instruction accurately
reflected the law and covered the issues presented in the case, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in not giving the jury
instruction requested by Bailey. See United States v. Chaney, 964
F.2d 437, 444 (5th Cir. 1992).
Bailey also argues that the district court clearly erred in
denying a reduction in his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 3B1.2. He argues that he was entitled such a reduction for his
minor role in the offense because he merely provided the vehicle
which was used in the bank robbery. The district court did not
clearly err in finding that Bailey was not a minor participant, as
the evidence established that he was involved in the planning of
the robbery, he loaned his vehicle to the persons who actually
committed the robbery, he reminded another participant to make a
diversionary bomb threat telephone call, and he received some of
the proceeds of the robbery in exchange for providing his vehicle.
See Burton v. United States, 237 F.3d 490, 504 (5th Cir. 2000);
United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 198 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --