The HONORABLE GEORGE F. GUNN, JR., 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* [UNPUBLISHED]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.

Ryan 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 district

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. 

At the plea hearing, the Assistant U.S. Attorney summarized the essential

elements of the government's case against Jones on the firearm charge:

[The] Government can further prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that . . . Adrian Mosley, a co-defendant in this case, held a bank employee

at gunpoint during that attempted robbery in an attempt to gain entry into

the bank.

Although the defendant, Ryan Jones, was not armed during the

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 evidence that defendant was responsible for acquiring the

weapon prior to the attempted robbery and that he was present at the bank

during the attempted robbery when Adrian Mosley held the bank

employee at gunpoint.

The district court then questioned Jones concerning these allegations:

THE COURT: Well, you are not agreeing to the fact that you

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 COURT: All right. Do you agree that you did what [the

prosecutor] says you did insofar as attempting to rob the Southwest Bank

and being in possession of a weapon in connection with the attempted

robbery?
-3-

MR. JONES: Yes, sir.

For purposes of Rule 11(f), "a factual basis for a plea of guilty is established

when the court determines there is sufficient evidence at the time of the plea upon

which the court may reasonably determine that the defendant likely committed the

offense." United States v. Marks, 38 F.3d 1009, 1012 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied,

514 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

driver for aiding and abetting a § 924(c)(1) violation during a bank robbery because

"defendant was an integral part of the armed robbery, was aware of co-defendant's

possession of [a] gun, and knew that the weapon would be used to commit the crime."

As described at the plea hearing, the government's case against Jones was even stronger

than in Simpson -- Jones knew a firearm would be used in the planned robbery, and he

was present when co-defendant Mosley held a bank employee at gunpoint in an

unsuccessful effort to gain entry into the bank. These admissions adequately support

Jones&s guilty plea to the firearm offense. Jones relies on United States v. Medina, 32

F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 1994), but that case is factually distinguishable because defendant was

not present during the attempted robbery and did not recruit the robber who carried a

weapon. To the extent the court's discussion in Medina is inconsistent with our

decision in Simpson, we are bound to follow Simpson.

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.