United States v. Marcello Shofner

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · June 26, 2020 · No. 19-10944

Summary

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a bank robbery sentence, holding that the district court did not plainly err in applying a four-level abduction enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) because a codefendant's movement of employees to obtain money was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant as a co-conspirator. The court also found no plain error in applying a two-level reckless endangerment enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 for a high-speed police pursuit, as the defendant's planning of a getaway driver made the factual determination of his aiding or abetting the flight subject to reasonable dispute. The case addresses plain error review for unpreserved sentencing challenges and the scope of relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) for co-conspirator actions.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Davis; Smith; Higginson
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
June 26, 2020
Docket number
19-10944
Procedural posture
Appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence after a guilty plea.
Standard of review
plain error
Precedential value
unpublished
Parties
Marcello Shofner v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sentencingcriminal procedurestandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

Criminal LawSentencing

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court plainly erred in applying the U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) abduction enhancement because it was not reasonably foreseeable that the codefendant would abduct employees.
  2. Whether the district court plainly erred in applying the U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 reckless endangerment enhancement because Shofner did not willfully participate in the high-speed police pursuit.

Holdings

  1. The district court did not plainly err because the movement of employees to facilitate the robbery was reasonably foreseeable to Shofner as a participant in the robbery.
  2. The district court did not plainly err because the factual determination of whether Shofner aided or abetted the flight is at least subject to reasonable dispute, so it cannot be clear or obvious error.

Factual background

Shofner and a codefendant robbed a credit union. During the robbery, the codefendant moved employees to a different location to obtain money. Shofner arranged for a getaway driver, which led to a high-speed police pursuit.

Procedural history

Shofner pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery. The district court sentenced him to 180 months imprisonment and three years supervised release. He appeals the application of two sentencing enhancements.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…