Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): bank robber’s statement even though the defendant has not stated that he intends to Idll the teller absent cooperation. See, e.g., United States v. Murray, 65 F.3d 1161, 1166-67 (4th Cir.1995)(eoneluding that a threat to shoot a firearm at a person during a robbery, created by an combination of threats or gestures that would put ordinary victim in reasonable fear of his life is express threat of death); United States v. France, 57 F.3d 865, 866-68 (9th Cir.1995)(adopting view of other circuits that statements and other conduct may constitute express threat of death in absence of robber’s explicit threat to Mil victim); United States v. Hunn, 24 F.3d 994, 997 (7th Cir.1994) (rejecting restrictive reading of guideline); United States v. Robinson, 20 F.3d 270, 276-77 (7th Cir.1994)(<HOLDING>); United States v. Lambert, 995 F.2d 1006, 1008 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that i have a gun is sufficient to justify the sentencing enhancement because it merely requires a teller to make the reasonable inference that a robber would use the gun he claimed to have if he did not receive the money he demanded (B) holding that the statement i have a gun would cause a reasonable teller to fear being shot and that the phrase i am willing to use it would make a fear of death even more likely (C) holding direct testimony tying a defendant to a gun was not required when the gun was found in the defendants truck and when the defendant had both ammunition for the gun and a rack in which it could have been kept (D) holding without detailed exposition that i have a gun and am not afraid to use it warranted enhancement (E) holding that i have a gun give me money may imply threat to use gun but was not an express threat of death
Output (English): holding direct testimony tying a defendant to a gun was not required when the gun was found in the defendants truck and when the defendant had both ammunition for the gun and a rack in which it could have been kept