defendant was not present at the scene of the crime, and we made clear that “a defendant who is present but unarmed during the commission of a crime may ([ ] by the division of labor) make it easier for another to carry a firearm and therefore aid and abet that act.” Id. at 47. Here, the evidence showed that Santana actively facilitated Torres’s use of the firearm by “division of labor.” Santana entered the apartment with Torres, helped to subdue Flores, and then Santana guarded Flores while Torres stole untaxed cigarettes, marijuana, jewelry, and electronics. Santana’s role exceeded the type of assistance to a gunman in a robbery that we have previously found sufficient for an aiding and abetting conviction under § 924(c). See United States v. Gomez, 580 F.3d 94, 102-03 (2d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). The evidence was also sufficient to establish
holding that a comment made by a person who played no role in the employment decision was a stray remark that lacked any probative value as a matter of law holding that escape driver with no prior knowledge that robbery would be armed is aider and abettor of aimed bank robbery if he knowingly and willfully joins in the escape phase of an armed bank robbery knowing that an accomplice has a gun holding that a downgrade for a juvenile who pled guilty to firstdegree robbery was not warranted because although the defendant acted as the lookout while his confederate committed the robbery we see no basis for characterizing defendants role as only secondary  and no evidence of the kind of psychological impairment that would be relevant to this determination holding that there was sufficient evidence to convict an accomplice who was  present as a lookout at the scene and who played a critical supportive role in the armed robbery by acting as a driver of a secondary vehicle holding that there was sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation when the defendant previously planned to commit the robbery armed himself with a shotgun and shot the victim during the robbery