The HONORABLE GEORGE F. GUNN, J R., United States District Judge for 1 the Eastern District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1347

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Ryan Jones, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 6, 1997 Filed: November 24, 1997

___________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
R y an Jones pleaded guilty to attempted bank robbery by force or intimidation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and 2(a), and using and carrying a firearm during the attempted robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1) and 2(a). The distric t court sentenced Jones to ninety months in prison and two years supervised release. 1-2-

Jones appeals, arguing that the court accepted his plea to the firearm offense without an adequate factual basis, thereby violating Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f). We affirm. Atthe p lea hearing, the Assistant U.S. Attorney summarized the essentia l elements of the government's case against Jones on the firearm charge:

[The] Government can further prove beyond a reasonable doub t that . . . Adrian Mosley, a co-defendant in this case, held a bank employee at gunpoint during that atte mpted robbery in an attempt to gain entry into the bank. Althoug h the defendant, Ryan Jones, was not armed during th e attempted robbery, the defendant was aware of the fact that a firearm was to be used during the commission of the robbery. . . . [T]he government could produce evi dence that defendant was responsible for acquiring the weapon prior to the attempted robbery and that he was present at the bank duri ng the attempted robbery when Adrian Mosley held the ban k employee at gunpoint. The district court then questioned Jones concerning these allegations:

THE COURT: Well, you are not agreeing to the fact that yo u acquired the weapon or that you were present, is that correct? MR. JONES: Not that I -- I didn't acquire the weapon, but, yes, I was present. * * * * * THE COU RT: All right. Do you agree that you did what [th e prosecutor] says you did insofar as attempting to rob the Southwest Bank and bei ng in possession of a weapon in connection with the attempte d robbery?-3- MR. JONES: Yes, sir. For purposes of Rule 11(f), "a factual basis for a plea of guilty is establishe d when the cou rt determines there is sufficient evidence at the time of the plea upo n which the court may reasonably determine that the defendant likely committed th e offense." United States v. Marks , 38 F.3d 1009, 1012 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 51 4 U.S. 1067 (1995). In United States v. Simpson , 979 F.2d 1282, 1285 (8th Cir
. 1992), cert. denied , 507 U.S. 943 (1993), we upheld the conviction of a getaway car driverforaiding and abetting a § 924(c)(1) violation during a bank robbery becaus e "d efendant

was an integral part of the armed robbery, was aware of co-defendant' s possession of [a] gun, and knew tha t the weapon would be used to commit the crime." As described at the plea hearing, the government's case against Jones was ev en stronger than in Simpson

-- Jones knew a firearm wou ld be used in the planned robbery, and he was prese nt when co-defendant Mosley held a bank employee at gunpoint in a n unsucc essful effort to gain entry into the bank. These admissions adequately support Jones & s guilty plea to the fir earm offense. Jones relies on United States v. Medina , 32 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 1994), but that case is factually distinguisha ble because defendant was not pre sent during the attempted robbery and did not recruit the robber who carried a wea pon. To the extent the court's discussion in Medina is inconsistent with ou r decision in Simpson , we are bound to follow Simpson
. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.