context: The district court here found and the testimonial evidence adduced at trial shows that Robinson entered the store displaying a weapon, ordered everyone to get on the floor, demanded money from the store's owner, and discharged his weapon in a struggle with the store's owner. The district court's determination that Robinson was not a minor participant therefore was not clearly erroneous.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 15 F.3d 825, 826
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that a defendant who participated in a robbery by driving a robber to the scene, storing stolen goods and dispersing checks was not entitled to the minor participant role reduction
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Pinkney, 15 F.3d 825, 826 (9th Cir.1994) (stating that a defendant who participated in a robbery by driving a robber to the scene, storing stolen goods and dispersing checks was not entitled to the minor participant role reduction); cf. United States v. Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d 464, 472 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that minor participant determination must be made relative to all participants in the criminal scheme for which the defendant is charged).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 234 F.3d 464, 472
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that minor participant determination must be made relative to all participants in the criminal scheme for which the defendant is charged
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Pinkney, 15 F.3d 825, 826 (9th Cir.1994) (stating that a defendant who participated in a robbery by driving a robber to the scene, storing stolen goods and dispersing checks was not entitled to the minor participant role reduction); cf. United States v. Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d 464, 472 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that minor participant determination must be made relative to all participants in the criminal scheme for which the defendant is charged).