minor participant. See United States v. Benitez, 34 F.3d 1489, 1497 (9th Cir.1994). 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. 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>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not
holding that minor participant determination must be made relative to all participants in the criminal scheme for which the defendant is charged recognizing that enhancement requires control over a participant in the scheme not only control over the scheme itself holding that reasonable attorneys fees for the benefit of a minor in defending the minor against a criminal charge were necessaries holding that even if a courier is charged with importing only the quantity of drugs that he actually carried the sentencing court must examine the relative conduct of other participants in the scheme in assessing the couriers relative culpability holding that because only the drugs defendant actually transported were attributed to him in calculating his sentence he was not a minor participant in relation to the offense