United States v. Clinton Thompson, III

MEMORANDUM

In an opinion filed concurrently with this memorandum disposition, we reverse all defendants’ convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 844 (h)(1) and (m). Here, we consider and affirm appeals by defendants Clinton Thompson, III and Tavrion Dawson that relate to their counts of bank larceny. They jointly contend that the district court erred by denying their motion to instruct the jury regarding withdrawal as a defense to aiding and abetting the crime. Dawson independently appeals the district court’s denial of his proposed “mere presence” instruction and contends that the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence to support his conviction. We reject each of these grounds for appeal and, thus, affirm Thompson’s and Dawson’s convictions for aiding and abetting the bank larceny.

1. Assuming, without deciding, that withdrawal is an appropriate defense to aiding and abetting liability, we nonetheless conclude that Thompson and Dawson both completed an act of assisting the bank larceny before they withdrew. Thompson delivered the thermal lance, and Dawson delivered a hammer. Even if we accept that Thompson and Dawson went home after the delivery, deciding not to serve as…