context: "A district court's finding that a defendant does not qualify for a minor or minimal participant status is heavily dependant on the facts of the particular case, and we uphold such a finding unless it is clearly erroneous." Amuchastegui's role in the armed bank robbery, including giving his co-defendant the gun, driving the getaway car, and receiving a share of the loot, does not entitle him to either a minor or minimal role adjustment.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 189 F.3d 1151, 1160
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that the appellant has the burden to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that he is substantially less culpable than the average co-participant
citation_a.sentence: United States v. Hernandez-Franco, 189 F.3d 1151, 1160 (9th Cir.1999) (stating that the appellant has the burden to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that he is substantially less culpable than the average co-participant); see also United States v. Pinkney, 15 F.3d 825, 828, (9th Cir.1994) (stating that “one kind of average participant in a robbery would be the person who drove the robber to the scene and then drove him or her away again, and expected a share of the loot”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 15 F.3d 825, 828
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that "one kind of average participant in a robbery would be the person who drove the robber to the scene and then drove him or her away again, and expected a share of the loot"
citation_b.sentence: United States v. Hernandez-Franco, 189 F.3d 1151, 1160 (9th Cir.1999) (stating that the appellant has the burden to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that he is substantially less culpable than the average co-participant); see also United States v. Pinkney, 15 F.3d 825, 828, (9th Cir.1994) (stating that “one kind of average participant in a robbery would be the person who drove the robber to the scene and then drove him or her away again, and expected a share of the loot”).