UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4972

SCOTTY DEWAYNE SANDERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.

Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-95-837)

Submitted: September 11, 1997

Decided: September 23, 1997

Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Allen B. Burnside, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,

South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney,

Marshall Prince, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Scotty Dewayne Sanders challenges his conviction and sentence,

on a guilty plea, for aiding and abetting the use of a firearm in a crime

of violence under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1), 2 (1994). While Sanders

admits that he aided and abetted in the robbery in which his codefendant used and carried a firearm, he challenges on appeal the sufficiency of the factual basis to support the district court's acceptance

of his guilty plea as to his aiding and abetting the use of the firearm.

Specifically, Sanders admits to helping to plan the robbery, accompanying his co-defendants to pick up a shotgun that Sanders knew

would be used in the robbery, accompanying the co-defendants to the

scene of the robbery, making sure the laundromat was clear for the

robbery to take place, fleeing the scene with the co-defendants, and

joining in the split of proceeds from the robbery. However, he claims

that because he did not personally use or carry the firearm, and did

not direct or counsel his co-defendant, the stipulated leader of the

crime, to use the firearm in the robbery, the government has not presented a sufficient factual basis to support his guilty plea as to the use

of the firearm. He asserts that the Supreme Court's decision in Bailey

v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4039 (U.S. Dec. 6, 1995)

(No. 94-7448), was intended to limit convictions under § 924(c) to

those defendants actually using or carrying firearms. For the reasons

set forth below, we reject Sanders's claims and affirm his conviction

and sentence.

To be convicted of aiding and abetting, the government must show

that a defendant knowingly associated with a criminal and participated in an unlawful undertaking. United States v. Winstead, 708 F.2d

925, 927 (4th Cir. 1983). Also, a person convicted of using a firearm

in a crime of violence may be punished both for the underlying crime

and for the § 924(c) charge. United States v. Luskin, 926 F.2d 372,

375-78 (4th Cir. 1991). Title 18 U.S.C. § 2 provides that an aider and

abettor is punishable as a principal.

 2
There is no dispute that the conduct of Sanders's co-defendant

clearly constituted "use or carry" of a firearm during and in relation

to a crime of violence, in violation of § 924(c), and as that term has

been defined by this court and under Bailey. Given the facts of this

case, we find that it was reasonably foreseeable that Sanders's codefendant would use the gun in the commission of the robbery. The

co-defendant's actions were properly attributed to Sanders under the

theory set forth in Pinkerton v. United States , 328 U.S. 640 (1946).

Since Sanders aided and abetted his co-defendant in the robbery, he,

like his co-defendant, is punishable for the co-defendant's use of the

firearm. See United States v. Simpson, 979 F.2d 1282, 1285 (8th Cir.

1992).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's acceptance of Sanders's

guilty plea, and affirm Sanders's conviction and sentence. 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