United States v. Bailey, 972 F.3d 1179

Defendant was indicted on multiple counts including Hobbs Act robberies, §924(c) brandishing counts, and a Hobbs Act conspiracy; jury convicted him on seven counts related to three Walgreens robberies.
Defendant personally committed two robberies (April 28, 2015 and July 20, 2017); those convictions are not at issue here.
For the January 6, 2018 robbery, a juvenile accomplice executed the robbery; Defendant supplied the firearm and mask, instructed the juvenile, and acted as getaway driver.
Defendant was convicted for the 2018 robbery of Hobbs Act conspiracy, Hobbs Act robbery, and brandishing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (Count 9).
On appeal Defendant argued the evidence was insufficient/that the indictment was constructively amended because he did not personally brandish the gun; he failed to make this precise argument below, so the panel reviewed for plain error.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding the evidence supported conviction under an aiding-and-abetting theory and that aiding-and-abetting need not be charged in the indictment where the jury is properly instructed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supports conviction for brandishing a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)) when defendant did not personally brandish the gun	Gov't: Evidence shows Defendant aided and abetted brandishing — he provided the gun, directed the juvenile, and participated as getaway driver; aiding-and-abetting can sustain a §924(c) conviction	Defendant: He never personally brandished; indictment charged him as principal for brandishing, not as an aider/abettor — conviction therefore unsupported/constructively amended the indictment	Affirmed. No plain error: evidence showed aiding-and-abetting under Rosemond; aiding-and-abetting need not be alleged in indictment if jury properly instructed

Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (aiding-and-abetting a §924(c) offense requires advance knowledge that accomplice would use or carry a gun)
United States v. Cooper, 375 F.3d 1041 (10th Cir.) (aiding-and-abetting is not a separate crime and can support conviction even if indictment charges defendant as principal)
United States v. Alexander, 447 F.3d 1290 (10th Cir.) (aiding-and-abetting need not be expressly alleged in the indictment)
United States v. Brown, 400 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir.) (definition and application of constructive amendment doctrine)
United States v. Goode, 483 F.3d 676 (10th Cir.) (plain-error review framework)
United States v. Kimler, 335 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir.) (plain-error standard and waiver principles)