USA v. Emmanuel Butler

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed : Accordingly we AFFIRM Butler's sentence. Decision not for publication. Ralph B. Guy , Jr., John M. Rogers and Bernice Bouie Donald, Circuit Judges.

Case: 13-2347

Document: 24-2

Filed: 09/16/2014

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0726n.06
No. 13-2347

FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Sep 16, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EMMANUEL NATHANIEL BUTLER,
Defendant-Appellant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
MICHIGAN

BEFORE: GUY, ROGERS, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Emmanuel Nathaniel Butler appeals his sentence.
Butler pleaded guilty to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and the district
court sentenced him to 70 months in prison.

We vacated the sentence and remanded for

resentencing because the district court miscalculated Butler’s criminal history category. On
remand, the district court determined that, based on his total offense level of 20 and criminal
history category of V, Butler’s guidelines range of imprisonment was 63 to 78 months. The
court sentenced him to 65 months in prison.
On appeal, Butler argues that the district court erred by refusing to reduce his total
offense level under USSG § 3B1.2 based on his minimal or minor role in the bank robbery. We
review for clear error a district court’s denial of a mitigating role adjustment under § 3B1.2.
United States v. Lanham, 617 F.3d 873, 888 (6th Cir. 2010). To obtain such an adjustment, a
defendant must show, at a minimum, that he is less culpable than most of the other individuals

Case: 13-2347

Document: 24-2

Filed: 09/16/2014

Page: 2

No. 13-2347
United States v. Butler
who were involved in the criminal conduct. United States v. Solorio, 337 F.3d 580, 601-02 (6th
Cir. 2003).
The district court did not clearly err by denying Butler’s request for a mitigating role
adjustment. The record before the district court showed that Butler and his accomplice agreed to
rob the bank, Butler drove the getaway car for the robbery, and Butler received approximately
half of the stolen money. Based on those facts, the district court could reasonably conclude that
Butler was not less culpable than the other individual who participated in the robbery. See
United States v. Lowery, 60 F.3d 1199, 1202 (6th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Patton,
14 F. App’x 450, 455 (6th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, we affirm Butler’s sentence.

-2-