Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01587/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01587-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Felicia Marie Balentine
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 06-1587

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Felicia Marie Balentine,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: March 16, 2007

 Filed: March 22, 2007

________________

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

Felicia Balentine appeals the 20-month sentence she received following her

guilty plea to bank burglary in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), arguing that the

district court1

 erred in giving her a two-level enhancement for more than minimal

planning under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 2B2.1(b)(1)

(2004). We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 06-1587 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2007 Entry ID: 3290769
-2-

Balentine worked as a teller at Regions Bank in Wynne, Arkansas. When she

telephoned her supervisor to report in sick on March 10, 2005, she was informed that

her teller drawer was short by $1,600. Balentine called her boyfriend in Bowling

Green, Kentucky, later that day, telling him that her situation "looked hopeless" and

that money in the bank was "there for the taking." She told him she had the

combination to the vault and the alarm code. Her boyfriend agreed to come to Wynne,

and Balentine wired $200 to him for the trip. She also purchased latex gloves to use

in the planned burglary. 

Balentine and her boyfriend waited until after 5:00 a.m. on March 11, 2005, to

go to the bank because Balentine knew the vault was inaccessible before that time.

She used her employee security code to disable the alarm to the bank, took keys to the

vault from her supervisor's desk, and disarmed the vault alarm. She placed cash from

the vault into a backpack and gave the pack, along with the teller drawers that were

located in another vault, to her boyfriend, who was waiting outside. Balentine used

a letter opener to remove the surveillance tape from the president's office and

destroyed the tape. Balentine stole nearly $147,000 from the bank.

After leaving the bank, Balentine and her boyfriend drove to Forest City,

Arkansas, where they pried open the teller drawers and removed the cash. They threw

the empty drawers, as well as consecutively numbered fifty dollar bills that Balentine

thought was bait money, into a ditch. The pair drove throughout the western United

States and was ultimately arrested in Gold Beach, Oregon, on March 25, 2005. 

Balentine pleaded guilty to bank burglary. At sentencing, the district court

overruled Balentine's objection to a two-level enhancement for more than minimal

planning. With the two-level enhancement, Balentine faced an advisory Guidelines

range of 18 to 24 months. The district court sentenced Balentine to 20 months of

imprisonment, and Balentine appeals the sentence.

Appellate Case: 06-1587 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2007 Entry ID: 3290769
2

Our analysis would reach the same conclusion under a de novo review, and we

merely note the divergent standards. 

-3-

We review the district court's interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and its

findings of fact for clear error. See United States v. Rouillard, 474 F.3d 551, 555 (8th

Cir. 2007). "Whether [Balentine] engaged in more than minimal planning is a fact

question reviewed only for clear error." United States v. Young, 272 F.3d 1052, 1055

(8th Cir. 2001); see also United States v. Brubaker, 362 F.3d 1068, 1070 (8th Cir.

2004) (reviewing district court's determination of defendant's role in the offense for

clear error because district court was required to draw inferences and make factual

determinations based on uncontested evidence); United States v. Bush, 352 F.3d 1177,

1184 (8th Cir. 2003) ("[T]he assessment of whether given facts should result in an

adjustment is entrusted to the district court's discretion and should be given

deference."). But see United States v. Finck, 407 F.3d 908, 913 (8th Cir.) (reviewing

de novo "whether the district court correctly applied the guidelines when it determined

those [uncontested] facts constituted sophisticated means." (internal marks and

footnote omitted)), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 282 (2005).2

According to the Guidelines commentary, "'[m]ore than minimal planning'

means more planning than is typical for commission of the offense in a simple form,

. . . [and] exists if significant affirmative steps were taken to conceal the offense."

USSG § 2B2.1, comment. (n.4). The commentary offers as an example the disabling

of an alarm system. Id. We have no doubt that Balentine's burglary involved more

than minimal planning. The offense in simplest form required only that an individual

enter a bank with the intent to commit a felony. See § 2113(a). Balentine's planning

was much more extensive than that required to enter a bank with the intent of taking

money. She purchased latex gloves before the burglary, wired money to her

accomplice so that he could assist with the burglary, waited until after 5:00 a.m. when

the vault would be accessible, disabled both the bank's exterior alarm and the vault's

alarm, destroyed the surveillance tape, and disposed of the teller drawers and the bait

Appellate Case: 06-1587 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/22/2007 Entry ID: 3290769
-4-

money in another town. The district court did not err, clearly or otherwise, in

applying the two-level enhancement for more than minimal planning. See Young, 272

F.3d at 1055 (affirming application of enhancement for more than minimal planning

where defendant walked twelve miles to commit a larceny, climbed a tree and used

a crowbar to obtain access to the locked building, and concealed stolen merchandise

in an abandoned house); United States v. Culver, 929 F.2d 389, 393 (8th Cir. 1991)

(purchase of disguises was sufficient to satisfy enhancement). 

The district court's judgment is affirmed.

______________________________ 

 

Appellate Case: 06-1587 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/22/2007 Entry ID: 3290769