
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl Von BRADLEY a.k.a Carl Von Brooks, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10200.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011. 
    
    Filed April 11, 2011.
    Kathryn C. Newman, Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Crane M. Pomerantz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jason F. Carr, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendanb-Appellant.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carl Von Bradley appeals from the 110-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Bradley contends that the district court erred by applying a five-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) for brandishing or possessing a firearm during the offense. He argues that: (i) the district court applied an incorrect standard of proof when it found that the enhancement applied; (ii) there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that a firearm was possessed during the robbery; and (iii) the district court improperly inferred that possession was foreseeable.

The record reflects that the district court determined the enhancement was supported by both a preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to support the enhancement. See United States v. Pike, 473 F.3d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir.2007) (clear and convincing standard of proof applies only when an enhancement has an extremely disproportionate effect on the sentence). The record further reflects that the district court did not clearly err in determining that it was reasonably foreseeable for a co-conspirator to possess a firearm during the robbery. See United States v. Willis, 899 F.2d 873, 875 (9th Cir.1990).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     