United States v. Adams, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9032

Defendant Adams participated in an October 18, 2012 bank robbery as lookout and organizer; he recruited a friend to drive the car.
He pleaded guilty to armed bank robbery and received an above-guidelines sentence of 140 months.
PSR: total offense level 22, criminal-history score 19 (category VI); guideline range 84–105 months.
District court denied a minor-participant reduction, treating all participants as equally culpable, and varied upward due to extensive criminal history.
The court framed the sentence as both an upward departure and a variance, ultimately indicating a variance from the guidelines under 3553(a).
Judgment affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Adams was entitled to a minor-participant reduction.	Adams argues he was a minor participant.	Adams contends his role as lookout and planner merits the reduction.	No minor-participant reduction; court did not clearly err.
Whether the district court acted within its discretion in imposing an above-guidelines sentence.	Adams contends the sentence was procedurally/substantively unreasonable as an above-guidelines sentence.	Adams argues the court failed to justify departure and/or misapplied factors.	Sentence affirmed as an upward variance, reasonable under 3553(a).

Lockhart, 37 F.3d 1451 (10th Cir. 1994) (not a minor participant where defendant knew the plan and sought compensation)
Hernandez, 49 F. App’x 834 (10th Cir. 2002) (driver with greater involvement not entitled to minor-participant reduction)
Tucker, 102 F. App’x 922 (6th Cir. 2004) (lookout/getaway role not minor participant when knowledge of scope shown)
George, 221 F. App’x 925 (11th Cir. 2007) (lookout in robbing firearms dealer not minor-participant; compensated and aware of scheme)
Johnson, 515 F. App’x 183 (3d Cir. 2013) (lookout with knowledge of enterprise; not entitled to minor/ minimal participant reduction (vacated/remanded on other grounds))