*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-20593

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DONNELL SCHOOD BENNETT, also

known as Donnell Schrood Bennett,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-96-CR-193-3

_________________________________________________________________

July 27, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

I

Donnell Schood Bennett was convicted after a jury trial of

aiding and abetting bank robbery, conspiracy to use and carry a

firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, and aiding

and abetting using and carrying a firearm during the commission of

a crime of violence. He was sentenced to two terms of fifty-seven

months’ imprisonment on counts one and two, to be served
2

concurrently, and a term of sixty months’ imprisonment on count

three, to be served consecutively, for a total of 117 months’

imprisonment. Bennett filed a timely notice of appeal from the

judgment of conviction.

II

A

Bennett argues that the evidence was insufficient to support

his convictions for aiding and abetting bank robbery, conspiring to

use and carry a firearm during a crime of violence, and aiding and

abetting using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence.

He contends that the testimony of his codefendant that he had a gun

and was present when discussions were had concerning the bank

robbery was not credible. He further contends that there is no

evidence that he used a firearm as defined by the Supreme Court in

Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1996). Finally, with regard

to his conspiracy conviction, Bennett argues that there is no

evidence of any agreement on his part to use and carry a firearm

during a bank robbery.

B

Doctory Hampton, Bennett’s codefendant, testified at trial

that he, Marcus Campbell, an unidentified juvenile, and Bennett

discussed robbing the Lone Star Bank at Campbell’s home one week

prior to the robbery. Hampton testified that he was supposed to
3

neutralize the security guard, that Campbell was supposed to hold

down the “lobby area,” and that Bennett and the juvenile were

supposed to then come inside and get the money. Hampton stated

that all four of them were supposed to have firearms.

Hampton testified that the four men met at Campbell’s house

again on the day of the robbery and that Campbell gave each of them

a gun. He stated that Campbell gave Bennett a “small revolver.”

Hampton testified that they left a van in a nearby parking lot

and traveled to the bank in a stolen Buick Regal. Hampton

testified that Bennett had his firearm “in [his] pants” with his

“shirt on the outside.” He stated that he and Campbell entered the

bank first and that Bennett and the juvenile were supposed to come

in a “minute or two later.”

Hampton testified that once he and Campbell entered the bank,

they pulled their guns on the security guard; a struggle ensued and

Campbell shot the guard. Campbell and Hampton ran out of the bank

and got in the car. Hampton testified that Campbell asked Bennett

and the juvenile why they did not come inside the bank and Bennett

responded that “a lady in a red truck” was watching them. The four

men returned to the van and drove it to the home of a friend of

Campbell’s, where Campbell collected the guns from Bennett and the

juvenile.
4

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

Government and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the

verdict, the evidence is sufficient to support Bennett’s

convictions. The evidence shows that Bennett was present during a

discussion concerning the planning of the bank robbery, that his

role in the robbery was planned during this discussion, that he

accompanied his three codefendants to the bank in a stolen car,

that he was in possession of a firearm when he accompanied them to

the bank, and that he stated to his codefendant that he did not

enter the bank as planned because he was being watched by someone.

Although Bennett argues that Hampton’s testimony conflicted with

other trial testimony, the jury apparently resolved any conflicting

testimony in favor of the government. See Martinez, 975 F.2d at

161.

C 

With regard to the firearm offenses, Bennett nevertheless

contends that there is no evidence that he used a firearm as

defined by the Supreme Court in Bailey. He further contends that

there is no evidence of any agreement on his part to use and carry

a firearm during a bank robbery.

Even if the evidence is insufficient to show active employment

of a firearm by Bennett, his conviction for aiding and abetting

using and carrying a firearm during the commission of a crime of
5

violence may nevertheless be upheld if he satisfied the carrying

prong of § 924(c)(1). See United States v. Rivas, 85 F.3d 193, 195

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 593 (1996). Testimony

demonstrated that Bennett was given a firearm by Campbell

immediately before the robbery, that he carried the gun with him in

his pants during the robbery, and that he was still in possession

of the gun after the robbery. Bennett’s knowing possession of the

firearm in the car during the bank robbery satisfies the carrying

requirement of § 924(c). See id. at 195-96. Further, Bennett’s

acceptance of the firearm from Campbell and knowing possession of

it during the robbery indicates that he voluntarily entered into an

agreement to commit the crime. See Fletcher, 121 F.3d at 196.

Based upon the evidence, a reasonable trier of fact could have

found Bennett guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

IV

Bennett argues that the district court erred by sentencing him

to a sixty-month consecutive sentence for the offense of using and

carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. He contends

that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction under

§ 924(c).

As discussed above, however, the evidence was sufficient to

support Bennett’s conviction. Further, § 924(c)(1) provides that

the five-year sentence for violating that section shall not run
6

concurrently with any other term of imprisonment, including that

imposed for the predicate crime of violence. This issue is

therefore without merit.

V

For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district

court is

A F F I R M E D.