F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NOV 21 1997
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-3395
(D.C. No. 96-CV-3370)
JANIS L. HORTON, (D. Kan.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, McKAY, and BRISCOE, 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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, and 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.
Janis L. Horton, a pro se federal inmate, seeks a certificate of appealability
to appeal the denial of her motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 after the
district court dismissed the motion on the merits and denied a certificate of
appealability. This appeal followed.
Ms. Horton filed her § 2255 motion seeking modification of her sentence
due to ineffective assistance of counsel. She also sought dismissal of her
conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) in light of the Supreme Court’s decision
in Bailey v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995).
Ms. Horton pled guilty to four counts of robbery and one count of the use
of a firearm during the robbery charged in count one. She was sentenced to sixty
months imprisonment on the four robbery counts to run concurrently and sixty
months on the firearm charge to run consecutively.
Ms. Horton alleges counsel was ineffective because, at sentencing, counsel
did not seek a further reduction of her sentence on the basis that she had
committed the crimes under duress and coercion from her co-defendant,
Mr. Bolton. The district court held that the issue of duress had been presented
because counsel had emphasized that Ms. Horton was offered protection during
Mr. Bolton’s trial as he had tried to have her killed to prevent her testimony.
Ms. Horton contends Mr. Bolton threatened her numerous times during the
course of the robberies and thus she was forced to assist him out of fear.
-2-
She correctly asserts that counsel did not present this issue to the district court.
However, the record before us, including the presentence report, contains no
report that Ms. Horton suffered duress over the course of the robberies. Without
actual evidence that this duress occurred and was known to counsel at the time of
sentencing, we may find no error on the part of counsel. 1
In Bailey, the Supreme Court held that a § 924(c)(1) conviction for use of
a firearm requires the defendant to have “actively employed the firearm during
and in relation to the predicate crime.” 116 S. Ct. at 509. The evidence here
showed that Mr. Bolton held the gun to a restaurant employee’s back while
ordering him to get the cash. This use of the firearm satisfies the requirements
of Bailey.
Ms. Horton contends, however, that because she did not personally use the
firearm, her conviction under Bailey is invalid. Ms. Horton was charged under
18 U.S.C. § 2 which provides that anyone who aids or abets in the commission of
a crime against the United States is punishable as a principal. Under § 2,
Ms. Horton needed only to assist Mr. Bolton by associating herself with the
venture, participating in it to bring it about, or acting to make it succeed.
1
The record contains an affidavit by Ms. Horton detailing the duress she
suffered at the hands of Mr. Bolton. However, this affidavit is dated after her
sentencing and, thus, cannot be used to support a claim of knowledge of these
assertions on the part of counsel at the time of sentencing.
-3-
See United States v. Uresti-Hernandez, 968 F.2d 1042, 1045 (10th Cir. 1992).
At her plea hearing, Ms. Horton admitted she helped in the robberies by driving
the getaway car and she knew a gun was used. Ms. Horton’s admissions satisfy
the requirements of § 2. Her conviction under § 924(c) was proper. See, e.g.,
United States v. Simpson, 979 F.2d 1282, 1285-86 (8th Cir. 1992).
Ms. Horton has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a
federal constitutional right. We, therefore, DENY her request for a certificate
of appealability and DISMISS this appeal. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-4-