UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4508

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TYME ESSENCE CLARK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

District Judge. (1:12-cr-00418-JAB-2)

Submitted: January 30, 2014 Decided: February 5, 2014

Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Clark Fischer, RANDOLPH & FISCHER, Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, 

Graham T. Green, Assistant United States Attorney, WinstonSalem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tyme Essence Clark appeals the twenty-eight month 

sentence imposed upon his guilty plea to one count of 

interference with commerce by robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2012), 

arguing that the district court erred in denying his request for 

a minor role adjustment at sentencing. Finding no error, we 

affirm. 

On June 16, 2012, the Dollar General store in Eden, 

North Carolina, was robbed at gunpoint by Ke’Vontae Bronson. 

Clark was an employee at the time. Security videos revealed 

that Clark had spoken with Bronson outside the store shortly 

before the robbery. When interviewed by the police, Clark 

initially denied any contact with Bronson prior to the robbery, 

but later admitted that Bronson had told him earlier in the day 

that he (Bronson) was planning to rob the store. Clark also 

admitted that Bronson had paid him $500 after the robbery. 

In post-arrest interviews, and at Clark’s sentencing 

hearing, Bronson stated that he had discussed with Clark the 

possibility of robbing the Dollar General store some time prior 

to the day of the robbery and that Clark had advised him 

regarding the best time to access the safe in the store. 

According to Bronson, Clark called him on the day of the robbery 

to inform him that he was at work and who was working with him 
3

that day. Bronson then went to the store to confirm with Clark 

that the robbery would take place as planned. 

The district court may reduce a defendant’s offense 

level by two levels if it finds that he was a “minor 

participant” in the criminal activity. U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 3B1.2 (2012). The district court’s 

factual finding is reviewed for clear error. United States v. 

Edwards, 188 F.3d 230, 238 (4th Cir. 1999). A defendant has the 

burden of showing that the adjustment applies to him. United 

States v. Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192, 202 (4th Cir. 1999). However, 

the adjustment applies only to a defendant whose part in the 

offense “makes him substantially less culpable than the average 

participant.” USSG § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A) (2012). The defendant’s 

conduct is examined not only “relative to the other defendants, 

but also . . . relative to the elements of conviction.” United 

States v. Blake, 571 F.3d 331, 352 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting 

Akinkoye, 185 F.3d at 202)). The factual question is “whether 

the defendant’s conduct is material or essential to committing 

the offense.” Blake, 571 F.3d at 353 (quoting Akinkoye, 185 

F.3d at 202). 

Here, Clark contends that his role in the commission 

of the robbery was not essential and was significantly less than 

Bronson’s. However, as the district court found, Clark’s role 

was essential to the completion of Bronson’s robbery as Clark 
4

provided key information regarding the location of the safe and 

best time to rob the store, and received $500 for his role. On 

these facts, we find no error in the district court’s denial of 

the minor role adjustment. 

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED