IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-60347
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBIN LYNN DUVALL,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:94-CR-109-S-A
- - - - - - - - - -
January 2, 1996
Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robin Lynn Duvall appeals her conviction and sentence for
aiding and abetting interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle,
carjacking, and using and carrying a firearm during a crime of
violence, i.e., carjacking. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c), 2119,
2312.
Duvall argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that
she aided and abetted the carjacking and the use and carrying of a
*
Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of opinions that have
no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-
settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on
the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published.
No. 95-60347
-2-
firearm during or in relation to the carjacking because the
government did not prove that she committed some act that related
to the use of the firearm. See United States v. Medina, 32 F.3d
40, 45-47 (2d Cir. 1994). "[T]o prove aiding and abetting, the
government must show that [Duvall]: (1) associated with the
criminal enterprise; (2) participated in the venture; and (3)
sought by action to make the venture succeed." United States v.
Harris, 25 F.3d 1275, 1279 (5th Cir.) (internal quotation and
citation omitted), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 458 (1994). “Use” of
a firearm under § 924(c) requires evidence sufficient to show an
active employment of the firearm by the defendant, a use that makes
the firearm an operative factor in relation to the predicate
offense. Bailey v. United States, 64 U.S.L.W. 4039 (U.S. Dec. 6,
1995).
After a thorough review of the record, we are satisfied that
the evidence was sufficient for conviction under both counts and
that the jury instructions correctly stated the law. See, e.g.,
Harris, 25 F.3d at 1279. The new standard enunciated in Bailey is
satisfied, as Duvall stood next to Lindsey Dye and Kelly Drott
while Drott spoke to Dye and pulled out the firearm in order to
take Dye’s car. Obviously, the firearm was an operative factor in
the carjacking.
Duvall argues that her convictions for aiding and abetting
carjacking and aiding and abetting the use and carrying of a
firearm during a crime of violence violate double jeopardy.
Controlling authority defeats her argument. See Harris, 25 F.3d at
No. 95-60347
-3-
1276, 1280-81.
Duvall argues that she should have received a reduction to her
offense level for being a minimal or minor participant. See
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Our review of the district court's finding
regarding Duvall's participatory role reveals no clear error. See
United States v. Thomas, 932 F.2d 1085, 1091-92 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 502 U.S. 895 (1991).
AFFIRMED.