United States of America v. Sandra Kay Cabell

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4622
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SANDRA KAY CABELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (CR-04-31)
Submitted: November 30, 2004 Decided: December 22, 2004
Before WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John G. Hackney, Jr., Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Stephanie L. Haines,
Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Sandra Kay Cabell pled guilty to aiding and abetting bank
robbery, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113, 2 (2000), and was sentenced to a term
of thirty-seven months imprisonment. She contends on appeal that
the district court clearly erred in denying her an adjustment
pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2 (2003) for
having a minor role in the robbery. We affirm.
Cabell drove Troy Handley to the Postal Credit Union in
Huntington, West Virginia, on February 12, 2003, and parked in an
alley behind the bank. When Handley emerged from the bank with
$7800, Cabell drove him away. A bank employee enlisted the help of
a passing driver and they tried to follow Cabell’s car, but she
successfully eluded them and took Handley to her home. Handley
immediately used some of the stolen money to obtain crack and was
smoking crack with Cabell when the police arrived. At the guilty
plea hearing, Cabell stated that, when she drove Handley to the
bank, she knew he intended to rob the bank. She said she
deliberately parked where her car would not be visible. She said
Handley came out of the bank with money in “stacks of hundreds” and
that she drove away, knowing that she was helping him escape from
the scene of the robbery.
A defendant’s role in the offense is a factual question
reviewed for clear error. United States v. Sayles, 296 F.3d 219,
224 (4th Cir. 2002). It is the defendant’s burden to show that she

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
is entitled to a minor role adjustment. United States v. Akinkoye,
185 F.3d 192, 202 (4th Cir. 1999). The district court should
examine the defendant’s conduct relative to that of other
defendants and to the elements of the offense of conviction. Id.
The critical inquiry is whether the defendant’s conduct is material
or essential to the commission of the offense. Id.
Cabell argues that she was less culpable than Handley
because she took no part in the planning or execution of the
robbery. She also contends that the adjustment was warranted
because she was addicted to cocaine and she had little time to
decide to become involved. However, a defendant who knowingly
assists another by driving him to and from the scene of the crime
has more than a minor role. United States v. Terry, 86 F.3d 353,
358 (4th Cir. 1996) (defendant who was driver of car from which co-
defendant shot at driver of passing vehicle did not have minor role
because he followed car so co-defendant could keep shooting).
Cabell’s assistance facilitated Handley’s robbery of the bank. We
conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying her
the minor role adjustment.
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --