Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02515/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02515-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Latoya Rose Hourston
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2515

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Latoya Rose Hourston, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 30, 2004

Filed: May 5, 2004

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Latoya Rose Hourston challenges the sentence the district court1

 imposed after

a jury convicted her of aiding and abetting armed bank robbery, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and knowingly and willfully making false material

statements to a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1001(a)(2). The district court sentenced her to 87 months imprisonment and 3 years

supervised release. On appeal, Ms. Hourston argues the evidence did not support a

Appellate Case: 03-2515 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2004 Entry ID: 1763911 
-2-

sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C), which requires a 5-level

increase if a firearm was brandished or possessed during a robbery. Specifically,

Ms. Hourston argues that she should not have received the enhancement because she

did not possess a gun, nor was she present during the robbery; the jury acquitted her

of a related weapon charge; and there was no credible testimony justifying the

enhancement. 

After careful review, we conclude the court did not err in assessing the firearm

enhancement. See United States v. Martinez, 339 F.3d 759, 761 (8th Cir. 2003)

(standard of review). First, according to the trial testimony of Ms. Hourston’s

codefendant, which the sentencing court was entitled to credit, Ms. Hourston obtained

the gun for the robbery; thus it would have been reasonably foreseeable to

Ms. Hourston that the gun would be displayed during the robbery. See U.S.S.G.

§§ 1B1.3(a) (in case of jointly undertaken criminal activity, specific offense

characteristics are determined based on “all reasonably foreseeable acts and

omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity,”

whether or not charged as conspiracy, that occurred during commission of offense of

conviction, or in preparation for offense); United States v. Sarabia-Martinez,

276 F.3d 447, 450 (8th Cir. 2002) (sentencing judge’s determination of witness

credibility is virtually unreviewable on appeal); United States v. Cowan, 196 F.3d

646, 649-50 (6th Cir. 1999) (brandishing-firearm enhancement appropriate where

defendant gave gun to juvenile to commit sting, as it was foreseeable that person

borrowing gun to commit robbery planned to brandish, display, or possess the gun

during the robbery), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1061 (2000). Second, the jury’s acquittal

of Ms. Hourston on the weapon charge was not dispositive. See United States v.

Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 149, 157 (1997) (sentencing court may consider conduct of

which defendant has been acquitted, so long as that conduct has been proved by

preponderance of evidence); United States v. Wallace, 212 F.3d 1000, 1005 (7th Cir.

2000) (firearm enhancement appropriate where defendant, who was convicted of

Appellate Case: 03-2515 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2004 Entry ID: 1763911 
-3-

aiding and abetting armed bank robbery, was acquitted of separate charge that he used

firearm during crime of violence).

 Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2515 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/05/2004 Entry ID: 1763911