United States v. James Gibson, 709 F. App'x 271

Defendant James Burrell Gibson pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting aggravated bank robbery (18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113(a), (d)) and admitted he drove the getaway van.
In exchange for the plea and an appeal waiver, the government dismissed an aiding-and-abetting § 924(c) firearm charge.
At the Rule 11 plea colloquy the district court described aggravated bank robbery’s elements (use of a dangerous weapon putting life in jeopardy; purposeful participation/association with the venture) and Gibson said in his own words he assisted the armed robbery.
Gibson was sentenced to 168 months’ imprisonment (low end of Guidelines) plus three years supervised release.
On appeal (plain-error review because Gibson did not raise these objections below), Gibson argued the court failed to advise him that conviction required foreknowledge that a firearm would be used and that the plea lacked factual basis for such foreknowledge.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding any error was not "clear or obvious" under existing precedent and thus did not satisfy plain-error review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred under Rule 11 by failing to advise that aiding-and-abetting aggravated bank robbery requires advance knowledge that a confederate would use a gun	Gibson: Rosemond requires advising that an aider-and-abettor must have foreknowledge of a firearm	Government/District Court: The plea colloquy tracked circuit law for aggravated bank robbery and conveyed necessary elements; Rosemond may not apply outside § 924(c) context	Court: No plain error — it was not "clear or obvious" that Rosemond’s advance-knowledge rule applies to § 2113(d) aiding-and-abetting charges
Whether the plea lacked a sufficient factual basis for foreknowledge of firearm use	Gibson: Record fails to show he had advance knowledge of firearms	Government: Gibson admitted assisting an armed robbery and driving the getaway vehicle; natural-and-probable-consequence doctrine can attach liability	Court: Declined to decide factual-sufficiency because failure to show a clear or obvious Rule 11 error undercuts plain-error relief

United States v. Alvarado-Casas, 715 F.3d 945 (5th Cir. 2013) (plain-error standard for Rule 11 failures)
United States v. Avalos-Martinez, 700 F.3d 148 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain-error framework)
United States v. Scott, 821 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. 2016) (clarifying when an error is "clear or obvious")
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (discretion to correct plain error when it affects fairness/integrity)
Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014) (holding advance knowledge required to aid and abet a § 924(c) gun offense)
United States v. Vaden, 912 F.2d 780 (5th Cir. 1990) (elements of aiding and abetting)
United States v. Gulley, 526 F.3d 809 (5th Cir. 2008) (aider-and-abettor liable for natural or probable consequences)
United States v. Ferguson, 211 F.3d 878 (5th Cir. 2000) (elements of bank robbery and aggravated bank robbery)