James Osier pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting a bank robbery. Osier now appeals his fifty-month sentence, claiming the district court should have reduced his offense level because he was only a minor participant in the offense. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B 1.2(b) (2000) (U.S.S.G.); id. n. 3 (defining a minor participant as one “who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal”). Contrary to Osier’s assertion, his status as a minor participant is a factual determination that we review for clear error. See United States v. Alverez, 235 F.3d 1086, 1090 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 1983, 149 L.Ed.2d 774 (2001) . Here, Osier was aware of the robber’s plan to rob the bank, drove the car to and from the robbery, and accepted $900 of the $3050 in proceeds. Having twice upheld the rejection of a minor participant reduction for a get-away driver who had advance knowledge of the bank robbery and shared in the proceeds of the robbery, we likewise conclude the district court’s denial of Osier’s objection is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Christmann, 193 F.3d 1023, 1025 (8th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1044, 120 S.Ct. 1545, 146 L.Ed.2d 358 (2000); United States v. Hafiz, 129 F.3d 1011, 1013 (8th Cir. 1997). Thus, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.