# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 A rgued A ugust 4, 20 09 Deci ded A ugust 1 7, 20 09

B efo re JO E L M . FL A U M , Cir cu i tJudg e M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E P . W O O D , Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08
- 3697 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A, P la intif f-A pp ellee,
v. ST A N L E Y G A T SO N , D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant . U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cour t forthe Eas te r n Di st r i cto fW i sc o ns i n. N o. 08
- CR
- 124 J. P. Stad tm ue ll er, Judge. O R D E R St an ley G at so nap p ea ls fro m h is 1 30 -m on th se n te n c e fo r b an k ro b b er y, ar gu in g on ly tha th e s ho ul d n o th a v e r e c e i v e d a t wo - l e v e ls e nt e nc i nge nh a nc e men tu nd e rU. S
. S
. G. § 3 B1. 4 forusi ng a m i nor, hi s br othe r, i n the com m i ssi on o fthe offense because he di d not dir ect the hi s br othe r du ring the o ffense. How eve r, o ne wh o re crui ts orenco urag es a m i nor to com m i t a cr i m e i s s ubj ect to the e nhancem ent, and the re cor d l eave s no questi on that G at so nrec ru ite d h is b ro th er to h elp in t h e ro b b er y. G at so n ’s g irlfrie n d , G lyn n is G re en e, w or ke d as a b an k t elle r atN or th Sh or e B an k in M i l w aukee
. S he to l d G ats on that a busi ness own err egul ar l y m ade l ar ge cash deposi ts on NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To b e ci te d o nl y i n a cc o r dan ce wi th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 08
- 3697 Page 2

cer tain days, and that the b ank guard w as unarm ed. Gats on then m et w i th se ver alpeopl e, i ncl ud i ng hi s br othe r, J am aal, wh o w as then s eve nteen yea rs o l d, to pla n a r obbe ry . On N ove m ber13 , 20 07, Gatso n, usi ng Gree ne’ s ca r, dro ve hi s br othe r and the o ther parti ci pants in the robber y t o the b ank. Up on a rr i vi ng atthe bank, al lexce pt Gatso n en te re d
. T w o of t h e ro b b er s b ra n d ish ed h an d gu n s, th re at en in g a se c u rit y g u ar d , a c u st om er , an d th e t elle rs , an d th e o th er tw o, in c lu d in g Ja m aa l G at so n, colle c te d $9 0,0 00 in cash fro m behind the counter . The g ro up fl ed the bank w i th S tanl ey Gatson a s the ge taway d riv er , an d ret u rn ed to G re en e’s h om e t o d ivid e u p th e m on ey . Po l i ce e ve ntua l l y f o und the r o bb er s th r o ugh Gr ee ne ’ s ce l l ul arpho ne r ec o r ds, a nd both the Gatson b ro ther s, Gree ne and the othe rs were charg ed i n the robber y. S tanl ey G at so np lea d ed gu ilty to on e c ou n t o f arm ed ba n k ro b b er y, see 18 U. S
. C. § 2 11 3( a) , ( d) , a nd on e c ou n t o f br an d ish in g a firea rm d u rin g c om m iss ion of a c rim e o f vio len c e, see § 9 24 (c )(1) (A )(ii). The proba ti on o ffi cercal cul ate d G ats on’ s o ffense l eve lf orthe robber y c ount a s 2 6, w h ich inc lu d ed a 2-le ve l en h an c em en t fo r u sin g a m in or in t h e c om m iss ion of a c rim e, see U . S. S. G. § 3 B1. 4, bec ause ofJ am aal ’ s invol vem ent. Gats on obj ecte d to thi s e nhancem ent, ar gui ng tha t he did not“per sonal l y use ” J am aalGatso n i n the robber y b ecause he di d not di r ec t, c o m m an d, o re nc o ur ag e J amaa ldur i ngthe c o m m i ss i o n o fthe o ffen se . Butthe dist ri ct c ourtdeni ed Gatson’ s obj ecti on, fi nd i ng tha t Gats on was the “l i nchp i n” that bro ught J am aalGatso n i nto the c ri m e be cause i t was he w ho ca rr i ed out Greene’ s pl an o f so l i ci tingthe o th erpa r ti ci pan ts . T he c o ur t th ena do pte d the fi ndi ng s i n the PS R a nd sente nced Gatson t o 46 m onths on co unt one and 84 m onths on co unt two, f ora tot alpri son ter m o f13 0 m onths. Gats on now appeal s. O nap p ea l, G at so nren ew s h is a rg u m en t th atth e e n h an c em en t fo r u sin g a m in or in the c om m i ssi on o fa cri m e s houl d not hav e a pp l i ed beca use he did not“use ” J am aalGatso n to co m m it th e ro b b er y. A s h e a rg u ed atse n te n c in g, G at so n ag ain u rg es h er e th ath e d id no t “di r ec t, c o m m an d, o re nc o ur ag e” J amaa ldur i ngthe c o m m i ss i o n o fthe o ffen se , a nd th ath e c ou ld n oth av e d on e s o, be c au se h e w as ou ts id e th e b an k a t th e t im e o f th e ro b b er y. Thi s ar g um en t i s wi th o utmer i t. T he di st r i ctc o ur t f o und tha t Gat so n c ar r i ed o ut Greene’ s pl an byso l i ci ti ng J am aaland others to part i ci pate in the cri m e. Gats on di d not conte st thi s fi nd i ng in hi s br i ef
. He did co ntesti t a t o ra lar gum ent, but ar gum ents not ra ise d in t h e b rie f are w aiv ed
. Se eLe arv. Cowan , 22 0 F . 3d 825, 82 8- 29 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00)
. That fi ndi nge ffec ti ve l y de fea ts Ga ts o n’ s ar g um en t. As th e appl i ca ti o n n o te s to the g ui del i ne expla i n, “using” a m i norto co m m i t a cr i m e incl ud es “dir ecting, co m m anding, enco urag i ng, in tim id at in g, co u n se lin g, tr ain in g, p ro c u rin g, re c ru itin g, or s olic itin g” a m in or to co m m itN o. 08
- 3697 Page 3

th e c rim e. U .S.S.G . § 3B 1.4 A p p . N . 1. W e h av e in te rp re te d th atlan gu ag e b ro ad ly. U nited Sta tes v. R a m sey, 2 37F . 3d 85 3, 8 59 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1)
. T he r e i s no que st i o n tha t bydr awi ng J a maa li nt o the s c he me a nd e xp l a i ningthe p l a n f o rthe r o b b e r y, Ga t s o n e nc o ur a g e d, c ou n se led , an d rec ru ite d h is b ro th er . G atson also argu es th at it i s not en ou gh that he w as aw are of a m inor’s par ti ci pat i o n; he a r g ue s th athe ha d t o a l so pe r so na l l y us e th e m i no r, a nd he i ns i st s th athe co ul d no t ha ve pe r so na l l y us ed J amaa lb ec au se he was no t ev eni n the b an kwi thhi m a t th e ti m e o fthe robber y. He ci tes U nite d States v. A cost a , 474 F.3d 99 9, 10 03 (7t h C ir. 20 07 ), in w hi ch w e hel d that i t i s no t e nough thata defe nd ant m er el y c onspi re d w i th the m i norf or th e e n h an c em en t t o a p p ly. See a lso Un i t e dS t a t e s v . C a l i ml i m, 538 F.3d 706 , 718 (7th C ir. 2 0 0 8 )
. B u tth i s c a s e i s d i s t i n g u i s h ab l e fr o m A cost a . Ther e, the defe nd ant was m er el y a m em bero fa gang that happ ened to i ncl ud e m i nor s a s m em ber s; A cos ta hers el fdi d not h av e m u c hp er so n al in vo lve m en t w ith th e m in or s. A cost a , 474 F . 3d at 1000 . Here, Gatso n was no t m er ely a c o co ns pi r at o ro fJ amaa l ’ s. He ac ti ve l y b r o ughtJ amaa lGa ts o n int o the c on sp ira c y a n d p ar tn er ed w ith h im an d th e o th er s. H e h im se lf em p loy ed Jam aa l to c om m it th e c rim e. Fu rt h er m or e, th e fa c t th atth ey w er e p h ys ica lly se p ar at ed d u rin g th e ro b b er y is i rr el evantbec ause Gatson had al re ady enco urag ed, co unsel ed, and re crui ted J am aalto c om m it th e ro b b er y b y th e t im e ith ap p en ed
. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Br azi ns kas , 45 8 F . 3d 666, 666- 67 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( applying § 3B1. 4 e nhancem ent e ven though o nl y defendant, and not m inor, ente red ban k d uring robbery). A ccor dingly, the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s AFFI RM ED .