United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 11, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-51221
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BONNIE MARIE HOUSE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:02-CR-400-ALL
--------------------
Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bonnie Marie House (“House”) appeals the conviction based on
her guilty plea to bank robbery by force or violence, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). She contends, for the first
time on appeal, that her bank robbery conviction must be vacated
because there was not an adequate factual basis to establish that
she robbed the bank by intimidation, an essential element of her
alleged offense.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 04-51221
-2-
Because House raised this issue for the first time on
appeal, she must show a plain error that affects her substantial
rights and that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v.
Baymon, 312 F.3d 725, 728 (5th Cir. 2002). In her brief, House
asserts that the proper standard of review is clear error because
she attempted to raise this issue before the district court in a
pro se motion. This argument is unavailing. House was
represented by counsel in the district court. Therefore, she
could not file a pro se motion, and the district court properly
struck her pro se motion without addressing the factual basis
claim. See Neal v. Texas, 870 F.2d 312, 315-16 (5th Cir. 1989).
Further, for the reasons set forth below, the district court did
not commit error, clear or plain.
To support the factual basis of House’s plea, “[t]he record
must reveal specific factual allegations supporting each element
of the offense.” United States v. Adams, 961 F.2d 505, 508 (5th
Cir. 1992). When reviewing the factual basis of House’s plea,
this court examines the entire record. United States v. Vonn,
535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002).
An essential element of House’s plea was the use of
intimidation, which in this context “means to make fearful or to
put into fear.” United States v. McCarty, 36 F.3d 1349, 1357
(5th Cir. 1994). The record need not contain evidence of an
express verbal threat or a threatening display of a weapon. Id.
No. 04-51221
-3-
Intimidation is established if an ordinary person in the teller's
position would have felt a threat of bodily harm from House’s
conduct. Id.
House obtained money from the teller after presenting a
demand note to her. Further, House’s presentence investigation
report (“PSR”) indicated that she asked the teller to give her
all of the teller’s money and not to include the strap as
required. Finally, the PSR revealed that the teller was very
scared during the robbery and remains very cautious when
customers approach her.
Because House’s demand note and oral demands caused the
teller to fear for her safety, there was a sufficient factual
basis for the intimidation element of House’s guilty plea to bank
robbery. The district court did not commit plain error or clear
error. Accordingly, the judgment on the district court is
AFFIRMED.