Court Opinion

ID: 992803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:57:54.18312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:26.344585
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 97-4085

ROBERT LEE HARRIS, a/k/a Peejack,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Chief District Judge.
(CR-96-35)

Submitted: July 24, 1997

Decided: August 11, 1997

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James M. Ayers, II, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice
McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant
United States Attorney, Cynthia E. Tompkins, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lee Harris was convicted by a jury of aiding and abetting
an armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(d) (West Supp. 1997), 18
U.S.C. § 2 (1994), and aiding and abetting the use of a firearm in a
crime of violence, 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West Supp. 1997), 18
U.S.C. § 2. Harris was sentenced as a career offender to 262 months
imprisonment for the bank robbery and 60 months for the § 924(c)
conviction, to be served consecutively. He appeals his conviction and
sentence, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the
verdict, that the district court clearly erred in finding that he was an
organizer of the offense, USSG § 3B1.1(c), 1 and also erred in sentenc-
ing him as a career offender, USSG § 4B1.1. We affirm.

Joseph Barrett (Harris' brother), Mark Jenkins, and Andre White,
all co-defendants who had entered guilty pleas, testified at Harris'
trial. They described how Harris cased a bank in Fountain, North Car-
olina, the day before the robbery with Jenkins and Calvin Dixon, and
loaned Dixon money so that Dixon could redeem his handgun at a
pawn shop. The next day, Harris picked up Barrett, Jenkins, and
White, and drove from Greenville, North Carolina, to Fountain. From
a canvas bag supplied by Dixon, Harris passed out ski masks and
gloves. He gave Dixon's gun to Jenkins and told everyone what to do
while he waited in the getaway car. Barrett, Jenkins, and White
robbed the bank of $876, with Jenkins holding the gun on the bank
employees, after which Harris drove them part way to Greenville. To
escape detection, Harris parked in a wooded area where the money
was split four ways. He then instructed Barrett to drive White back
to Greenville and return for him and Jenkins later. Harris testified in
his own behalf that he drove his co-defendants to the bank so that Jen-
kins could cash a check and was surprised when they robbed the
bank. He denied any involvement and asserted that his co-defendants
had testified falsely. We find that the evidence was sufficient to estab-
lish that Harris aided and abetted both the bank robbery and the use
of a firearm in the commission of the bank robbery, given that the
_________________________________________________________________
1 United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.
1996).

                    2
jury was forced to make a credibility determination and decided
against Harris. Despite admissions by Barrett, Jenkins, and White that
they had taken drugs and used alcohol the night before the robbery
and with knowledge of their criminal records, the jury found the gov-
ernment's witnesses more credible than Harris. We do not review the
jury's determination of credibility. See United States v. Saunders, 886
F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989).

With regard to the sentence, the district court did not clearly err in
finding that Harris was an organizer of the offense, or in sentencing
Harris as a career offender.2 Harris had prior convictions for armed
robbery and breaking and entering. Burglary of a dwelling is a crime
of violence under the definition set out in USSG§ 4B1.2(1)(ii). Infor-
mation in the presentence report described the building broken into as
a home. Harris offered no evidence to the contrary.

The conviction and sentence are therefore affirmed. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
2 A defendant is a career offender if he is at least 18 years old at the
time of the offense, the instant offense is either a drug offense or a crime
of violence, and the defendant has two prior felony convictions for drug
offenses or crimes of violence. USSG § 4B1.1.

                    3