United States v. Bey, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6619

Bey and three co-conspirators planned a bank robbery at a Waukegan, Illinois, branch in which Thompson, an insider, would facilitate the crime.
Bey provided a pellet gun to Schoenhaar to use during the robbery and waited in a getaway car with Gregory.
Schoenhaar entered the bank, displayed the gun, and demanded money while Thompson and a coerced coworker retrieved about $221,000.
Thompson and the coworker were directed to a bathroom; Bey and Gregory fled before the robbery concluded.
All four were apprehended and charged with bank robbery and conspiracy to commit bank robbery; Bey entered an Alford plea in the district court.
The district court imposed concurrent sentences of 92 months for robbery and 60 months for conspiracy, yielding effectively a 92-month term.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bey can be held responsible for the robbery as a conspirator.	Bey conspired to rob and thus is liable for the robbery under Pinkerton.	Bey contends he did not participate in the robbery itself.	Yes; Bey is liable under Pinkerton for co-conspirator robbery.
Whether the firearm and restraint enhancements were correctly applied.	Enhancements apply because gun was brandished and a coworker was restrained.	Foreseeability or intent to restrain was not established.	Enhancements affirmed as foreseeable and relevant to conduct.
Whether obstruction of justice bars an acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment.	Obstruction can coexist with acceptance of responsibility in extraordinary cases.	No genuine remorse; arguments insufficient.	Obstruction stands; no acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment.
Whether Bey qualified for a minor-participant reduction.	As a recruiter and supplier, Bey was central to the conspiracy.	Less culpable than others; minor-participant reduction warranted.	No minor-participant reduction; Bey’s role was substantial.

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (valid guilty-plea equivalent may be imposed even if innocence is maintained.)
Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) (co-conspirators liable for crimes of co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy.)
United States v. Hart, 226 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. 2000) (weapon-like objects in sentencing enhancements.)
United States v. Dorsey, 209 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 2000) (foreseeability and accountability for co-conspirator actions.)
United States v. Taylor, 620 F.3d 812 (7th Cir. 2010) (guidelines enhancements for weapon use and restraint.)
United States v. Carter, 410 F.3d 942 (7th Cir. 2005) (obstruction of justice considerations in sentencing.)
United States v. Mayberry, 272 F.3d 945 (7th Cir. 2001) (exceptional cases for combining obstruction and acceptance of responsibility.)
United States v. Salazar-Samaniega, 361 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2004) (limits on accepting responsibility when obstruction is present.)
United States v. McKee, 389 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2004) (relevant factors for determining participant status.)
United States v. Lowery, 60 F.3d 1199 (6th Cir. 1995) (minor participant analysis in conspiracy cases.)