The Hono rable Joseph E. Stevens, Jr., United States District Judge for th e 1 Western District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1492

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States District * Court for the Western District of Alim Hafiz, * Missouri. * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 10, 1997 Filed: November 25, 1997

___________ Before BEAM, FLOYD R. GIBSON, and HEANEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ BEAM, Circuit Judge.
Alim Hafiz appeals his conviction and sentence on one count of armed ban k robber y in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 2113(a) and (d). The district court 1 sentenced Hafiz to 78 months' confinement. We affirm.-2-

I. BACKGROUND
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a jury coul d reasonably find the following facts. On September 7, 1995, the appellant, Alim Hafiz, and Kevin Samuels plotted a bank r obbery while in the presence of James Smith. The next morning, Hafiz drove Samuels to a shopping center parkin g lot which is across the street from Boatmen's First National Bank, located at 3400 Red Bridge Road in Kansas City, Missouri. Hafiz parked the car facing the bank. While Hafiz and Samuels sat in the parked car, two witnesses became suspicious and called the police. Hafiz an d Samuels rema ined in the car for a few minutes before driving to a nearby gasolin e station.

Fro m a gasoline station pay phone, Hafiz called the bank and asked if it wa s open. Shortly thereafter, they drove to the bank parking lot. Samuels exited the car and Hafiz drove away. Samuels rolled a s ki mask over his face, pulled the hood of his sweatshirt over his head and entered the bank. He robbed the bank at gunpo int and fled
on foot with approximately $9,450 cash. Samuels and Hafiz subsequently split th e pr oceeds. Smith took no part in the robbery and was never charged with any crim e related to it.

Ha fiz contends that the district court erred at trial in: (1) limiting the cross

examination of Smith with respect to his involvement in the crime and any agreements he might have made with the go vernment; (2) refusing to submit a modified version of Eighth Circuit Model Jur

y Instruction 4.04; and (3) submitting, over objection, Eighth Ci rcuit Model Jury Instruction 4.15. He also asserts that the district court erred i n failing to adjust his offense level as a lesser participant under the Sentencin g Guidelines.-3-

II. DISCUSSION

We agree with the government's argument that the asserted trial errors wer e harmless. "An error is harmless if the reviewing court, after viewing the entire record, determines that no s ubstantial rights of the defendant were affected, and that the error d i d not influence or had only a very slight influence on the verdict." United States v. McC rady , 774 F.2d 868, 874 (8th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). After carefull y reviewing the record, we hold that the asserted trial errors, if any, were harmless i n light of the overwhelming evidence indicating Hafiz's guilt. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a).

The district court's decision not to adjust Hafiz's offense level is a factua l determination which we review under the clearly erroneou s standard. See, e.g. , United States v. Hall , 949 F.2d 247, 249 (8th Cir. 1991). The Sentencing Guidelines require a four-level adjustment for a codefendant who is a "minimal participant;" a two-level adju stment

for a "minor participant;" and a three-level adjustment for one fallin g betw een "minor" and "minimal." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2. A "mini mal participant" includes a defendant "plainly among the least culpable of those involved in the conduct of a group." Id. comment. (n .1). "[A] minor participant means any participant who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal." Id. comme nt. (n.3). Hafiz asserts that the district court should have adjusted his offense level at least two levels. We disagree.

The record shows that Hafiz plotted this robbery with Samuels and drove him to the bank knowing that he intended to rob it. Hafiz provided him with a gun an d duffel bag to use in the robbery. Moreover, after the robbery, Hafiz split the robbery proceeds with

him. Based on these facts alone, we hold that the district court did not commit clear error in refusing to a djust Hafiz's offense level under section 3B1.2. See United States v. Cr ouch , 46 F.3d 871, 876 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding that a person who repeatedly supplied guns to a gr oup of bank robbers and financed one of the robberies was not entitled to a m

inor participant adjustment); see also United States v. Pinkney ,-4-

15 F.3d 825, 828 (9th Cir. 1994) (refusing a minor participant adjustment for a codefendant who drove a bank robber to and from the crime scene).

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence.
A true copy.
ATTEST: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.