F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 9 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 98-5231
v. (D.C. No. 98-CR-44-H)
(N.D. Okla.)
MALCOLM EUGENE MOORE,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, LUCERO and KIMBALL, ** Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
The Honorable Dale A. Kimball, United States District Judge for the
District of Utah, sitting by designation.
This direct appeal arises from Malcolm Eugene Moore’s conviction and
sentencing in federal district court for his commission of several bank robberies.
On March 5 and April 3, 1998, two Tulsa banks were robbed by two men, one of
whom carried a gun. The jury found Mr. Moore guilty of committing each of
these robberies and of aiding and abetting his co-defendant’s use of the firearm
during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The district court
sentenced Mr. Moore to 690 months pursuant to the United States Sentencing
Guidelines.
Mr. Moore first argues there was insufficient evidence to uphold his
conviction for aiding and abetting his co-defendant, Jerome Brown, in the use of
a firearm. According to Mr. Moore, there was no evidence presented showing he
actively facilitated Mr. Brown’s use of the gun, nor that he even had any prior
knowledge Mr. Brown had a gun or was planning on using a gun during the bank
robberies. When reviewing a conviction for insufficient evidence, we consider all
the evidence in a light most favorable to the government to determine if a
reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See
United States v. Esparsen, 930 F.2d 1461, 1470 (10th Cir. 1991). “To be guilty
of aiding and abetting a crime, the defendant must willfully associate himself with
the crime and seek to make it succeed through some action on his part.” Id. Our
review of the record convinces us the evidence was sufficient to show that Mr.
-2-
Moore knowingly and actively participated in the armed robberies during which
he knew Mr. Brown was carrying a firearm. See United States v. Wiseman, 172
F.3d 1196, 1217 (10th Cir. 1999) (knowingly and actively participating in armed
robberies sufficient to uphold § 924(c) conviction), cert. denied 120 S. Ct. 211
(1999); United States v. Bindley, 157 F.3d 1235, 1238 (10th Cir. 1998) (same),
cert. denied 119 S. Ct. 1086 (1999). Furthermore, Mr. Moore directly facilitated
and was benefitted by Mr. Brown’s use of the firearm by collecting the robbery
proceeds while Mr. Brown brandished the weapon. See, e.g., Bazemore v. United
States, 138 F.3d 947, 949-50 (11th Cir. 1998) (upholding § 924(c) conviction
because defendant knowingly accepted protection afforded by co-defendant’s use
of a gun). As the court pointed out in United States v. Price, 76 F.3d 526, 529-30
(3rd Cir. 1996), even if the defendant did not know in advance that his co-
defendant was going to use a gun during the robbery, defendant’s continued
participation in the robbery while his co-defendant used the gun supports the
section 924(c) conviction. See also United States v. Morrow, 977 F.2d 222, 230-
31 (6th Cir. 1992) (en banc) (upholding § 924(c) conviction since co-defendant’s
use of firearm emboldened and protected defendant during commission of
underlying crime). The evidence here was sufficient for the jury to find Mr.
Moore aided and abetted Mr. Brown’s use of a firearm during the bank robberies.
Mr. Moore next challenges his sentence. He contends his criminal history
-3-
was overstated by the sentencing guidelines’ failure to take into account the non-
violent nature of his prior convictions, thereby creating a distortion which takes
his case out of the heartland of cases contemplated by the Sentencing
Commission. He further argues that the district court abused its discretion by
refusing to depart downward given Mr. Moore’s wholly non-violent criminal
history.
The Sentencing Commission has found the likelihood of recidivism greater
when a defendant has a criminal history, without distinguishing whether that
history is violent or non-violent. See USSG Ch.4, intro. comment. The
Commission is within its statutory authority to weigh policy issues and make such
determinations. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4), (5). Thus, we cannot say the
sentencing guidelines distorted Mr. Moore’s criminal history.
Under the guidelines, Mr. Moore was assigned a criminal history category
of VI. This level was combined with the offense level of twenty-six to arrive at a
maximum total sentence of 690 months. The district court refused to grant a
downward departure from the guidelines due to its conclusion that Mr. Moore’s
case was not outside the heartland of cases considered by the Sentencing
Commission. A district court’s refusal to depart from the guidelines is a
discretionary decision that cannot be appealed. See United States v. Jones, 80
F.3d 436, 439 (10th Cir. 1996). If the district court unambiguously states it lacks
-4-
the authority to depart from the guidelines in a particular case, however, we can
review that conclusion de novo. See United States v. Mitchell, 113 F.3d 1528,
1534 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied 118 S. Ct. 726 (1998). The threshold issue for
us to determine, therefore, is whether the district court unambiguously stated it
lacked the authority to make a downward departure.
The district court held Mr. Moore’s case was not outside the heartland of
cases considered by the Sentencing Commission “for purposes of this Court
having any freedom to engage in a downward departure.” Rec. vol. XIII at 8.
Assuming the district court was ambiguous regarding its authority to grant a
departure, that ambiguity is not enough for this court to review its decision. The
district court must unambiguously state it lacks authority to downward depart
before we will review the decision not to depart. See United States v. Rodriguez,
30 F.3d 1318, 1319 (10th Cir. 1994). Absent such an unambiguous statement, we
assume the district court “made a discretionary decision not to depart, not a legal
decision that it had no authority to depart.” United States v. Fortier, 180 F.3d
1217, 1231 (10th Cir. 1999). We therefore have no jurisdiction to review the
district court’s decision not to depart from the guidelines when it sentenced Mr.
Moore.
-5-
For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour
Chief Judge
-6-