Unpublished Disposition, 933 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

David Rivera Garcia appeals from the imposition of sentences of imprisonment under the Sentencing Guidelines, contending that the district court erred by (1) using his juvenile adjudications in determining the criminal history category; and (2) increasing the base offense level to reflect a leadership role. We reject these contentions and affirm.

DISCUSSION

Garcia objects to the use of his prior California juvenile adjudications for purposes of calculating his criminal history category. He contends that such state adjudications are civil rather than criminal and cannot be used to enhance his sentences. We have already fully considered such arguments and have rejected them. See United States v. Rangel-Navarro, 907 F.2d 109, 110 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Williams, 891 F.2d 212, 215-16 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 1496 (1990). We are bound by those decisions. United States v. Booten, 914 F.2d 1352, 1355 (9th Cir. 1990).

Garcia argues that the district court improperly found that he had a leadership role in the second bank robbery. He contends that the decision to rob a bank was made by consensus, that he exercised no control or authority over his partners during the actual course of the robbery, and that he did not receive a leader's portion of the fruits of the robbery. It is undisputed, however, that Garcia selected the particular bank to be robbed, told the driver of the getaway car where to wait, dropped off the robbers, and advised them how to conduct the robbery. Garcia's actions are sufficient to support the district court's finding of a leadership role. See United States v. Sanchez, 908 F.2d 1443, 1448 (9th Cir. 1990) (enhancement under U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.1 is proper when a defendant exhibits decisionmaking authority and organizational role in the commission of the crime).

AFFIRMED.