In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 99-3529

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CHAUNCY J. CLARK,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 99 CR 36--Charles N. Clevert, Judge.

Argued June 13, 2000--Decided September 11, 2000

 Before COFFEY, RIPPLE and KANNE, Circuit Judges.

 COFFEY, Circuit Judge. After a bench trial, the

district court found that Chauncy Clark obtained

funds from a Wisconsin bank through intimidation

and found him guilty of committing bank robbery

in violation of 18 U.S.C. sec. 2113(a). Clark

admits that he stole the money but contends that

because he carried no weapon, uttered no overt

threats and intended no harm, he is only guilty

of the lesser offense of bank larceny and not

bank robbery. Clark appeals, arguing that the

evidence was insufficient to establish

intimidation. We affirm.

I.

 On January 22, 1999, shortly before 4:30 p.m.,

Clark walked into the Marshall & Ilsley Bank

("M&I") in Greenfield, Wisconsin and waited in

line for the next available teller. When teller

Jennifer Kottke ("Kottke") signaled that she was

available for the next customer, he approached

her teller window and slid a note across the

counter. The note read: "It is important that you

remain calm and place all of your twenties,

fifties and hundred dollar bills on the counter

and act normal for the next fifteen minutes."

Initially, Kottke testified, she "wasn’t quite

sure [the robbery] was happening." She simply

uttered, "Huh?" Clark replied, "Yes, Ma’am, this

is a holdup." The bank teller then placed
approximately $2500 on the counter and slid it

toward Clark. Clark asked if there were any large

bills, and Kottke responded that there weren’t

any in her drawer at the time. Clark returned the

$1 bills to Kottke, saying, "no singles." During

this communication with Kottke, Clark’s hands

were visible and flat on the counter. After Clark

took the money, he turned and walked out of the

bank to his car parked in a nearby restaurant’s

parking lot.

 Immediately after Clark departed, Kottke alerted

a co-worker and informed her supervisor, Sandra

Winter, that she had been robbed. Winter dialed

911, and while Winter was on the phone with the

police, she, Kottke, and another M&I employee

observed Clark walk out of the bank to the

restaurant’s lot. Moments later, they noticed a

red vehicle exit the parking area. Shortly

thereafter, Winter described the car to police

and Clark was stopped and placed under arrest.

 The police literally caught Clark redhanded.

Kottke had given Clark bills laced with a

concealed dye pack, which exploded and released

red dye and tear gas onto Clark and his clothing

after he left the bank. During the search of

Clark’s vehicle, the officer discovered clothing

stained with red dye, the note Clark used in the

holdup, and approximately $2500.

 At the bench trial, the government called five

witnesses. Greenfield police officers David Lang

and Harlan Petersen testified about the stop and

search of Clark and his vehicle. Lang confirmed

that Clark was "compliant," "polite," and not

"combative." Officer Petersen testified that

Clark denied using a weapon or having an

accomplice and further stated that Clark was

"coherent" and did not appear to be under the

influence of either drugs or alcohol. 

 Another officer, Michael David Brunner,

testified that he was the first to reach the bank

after the robbery and that during his interview

with Kottke, she was "ready to cry" and "quite

shaken," and her voice was "trembling" and

"cracking." Furthermore, her hands were

"shaking," also confirming that she was

frightened. During the police interview, Kottke

told Brunner that Clark made no threats nor did

she observe any weapons during the robbery. In

addition, Brunner testified that Kottke stated

during the interview that Clark appeared "calm"

during the hold-up. M&I employee Winter echoed

Brunner’s testimony when referring to Kottke’s

psychological well being and also recounted that

Kottke described Clark as "calm" and never

mentioned that he had threatened her.
 Kottke, a 21-year-old university student,

testified that at the time of the holdup she had

been employed by the bank for approximately nine

months. She recited what she had observed

concerning Clark’s appearance and outer clothing

as he approached her teller window as: a black

man wearing a dark hat, dark pants, and beige

trench coat that was "closed up." She stated that

Clark appeared to be an average customer and

further described the bank as being busy when

Clark entered, with every teller window occupied

and "five, six" people, including the defendant

Clark, waiting in line.

 Kottke testified that she became "very" scared

after Clark handed her the note and that she did

not feel threatened before the incident; however,

she "panicked" when she realized what Clark’s

intentions were. She conceded she "could not

tell" whether Clark had a weapon, and also

confirmed that during their ten- or fifteensecond encounter, Clark neither put his hands in

his pockets nor overtly threatened her with harm

if she did not give him the money. Nonetheless,

Kottke agreed that Clark’s "mere physical

presence" was intimidating and caused her to fear

for her safety. She clarified this statement,

stating that she was intimidated not only because

of what Clark did, but also his announcement that

"it was a holdup . . . [and] just being in the

situation in general." Kottke added that after

the robbery she was so upset that she was unable

to drive home and asked her parents to pick her

up at the bank. She noted that she was unable to

sleep at night and that it was difficult to

return to work immediately and in fact did not

return to work until three days later. In

addition, she testified that she gets "real

nervous" when dealing with any customers

resembling Clark.

 At the close of the government’s case, Clark’s

counsel moved for dismissal, arguing that the

government failed to establish that Clark

committed a robbery by intimidation. After the

district court denied Clark’s motion, the

defendant, the only defense witness, testified

that he told Kottke that their interaction was a

"holdup" only because "[s]he didn’t respond to

the note." He further testified that he defined

"holdup" as meaning "to comply." He described his

demeanor and facial expressions during the holdup

as being "calm." He stated that he had "no

intentions" of harming Kottke and said that, had

she refused to give him the money or appeared

frightened, he would have left the bank. But he

conceded that he neither told Kottke that he was

unarmed nor told her that he wouldn’t harm her.

 Contrary to Clark’s assertion, "robbery" is
defined as the "illegal taking of property from

the person of another, or in the person’s

presence, by violence or intimidation." Black’s

Law Dictionary 1329 (7th ed. 1999). The trial

judge agreed and concluded that Clark had

committed a bank "robbery" because he took funds

belonging to M&I from the teller as a result of

his intimidation and without the consent of the

bank. The judge stated that "there is no doubt in

my view that Clark in this case intended to

frighten Ms. Kottke, that he in fact frightened

Ms. Kottke, [and] that he[,] by the use of the

note as well as emphasizing that his presence in

the bank was for the purpose of committing

robbery[,] intimidated her." The court reasoned

that Clark’s statement in his note that "[i]t is

important that you remain calm" suggested to

Kottke that "something could happen if she failed

to act normally for an extended period of time."

In addition, the court rejected Clark’s

explanation that he thought saying "This is a

holdup" was another way of saying "please

comply."

 The court sentenced Clark to 210 months of

confinement, three years of supervised release,

a $1000 fine, and a $100 special assessment.

II.

 Clark argues that the government failed to

prove intimidation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. sec.

2113(a) because there was no evidence that he

ever threatened Kottke, either through his words,

conduct, demeanor, or appearance. Moreover, he

asserts, his actions, including his note

demanding "all of your twenties, fifties and

hundred dollar bills" and his statement that

"this is a holdup," did not amount to

intimidation because they fell short of the

behavior we have characterized in prior cases as

intimidation. See United States v. Hill, 187 F.3d

698, 700 (7th Cir 1999); United States v. Smith,

131 F.3d 685, 686 (7th Cir. 1997); United States

v. Jones, 932 F.2d 624, 625 (7th Cir. 1991).

 When reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of

the evidence, we view the evidence in the light

most favorable to the government and will reverse

a conviction only if no rational trier of fact

could have found the essential elements of the

crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See United

States v. Jocic, 207 F.3d 889, 892 (7th Cir.

2000). A violation of 18 U.S.C. sec. 2113(a)

occurs when

[w]hoever, by force and violence, or by

intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, from

the person or presence of another, or obtains or

attempts to obtain by extortion any property or
money or any other thing of value belonging to,

or in the care, custody, control, management, or

possession of, any bank, credit union, or any

savings and loan association . . . .

Clark’s conviction for bank robbery required the

government to, among other things, establish

beyond a reasonable doubt that Clark took

something of value from Kottke "by force and

violence, or by intimidation." Hill, 187 F.3d at

700.

 We have defined intimidation as "say[ing] or

do[ing] something in such a way as would place a

reasonable person in fear." Smith, 131 F.3d at

687. More specifically, "the intimidation element

has an objective test: would the defendant’s acts

cause an ordinary person to reasonably feel

threatened?" Hill, 187 F.3d at 702. Further, we

have explained that intimidation under section

2113(a) exists in situations where the

defendant’s "conduct and words were calculated to

create the impression that any resistance or

defiance by the teller would be met with force."

Jones, 932 F.2d at 625. See Hill, 187 F.3d at

701; Smith, 131 F.3d at 688.

 Here, Clark either fails to understand or

intentionally attempts to misinterpret the clear

and unambiguous language in our prior decisions.

In Hill, as in our earlier decisions, we

acknowledged that the context of the crime

provides evidence of intimidation and ruled that

the defendant’s appearance and actions during the

course of the offense "figure into the

[intimidation] assessment." 187 F.3d at 701; see

Smith, 131 F.3d at 689; Jones, 932 F.2d at 625.

Thus, a teller’s feelings about the crime she

experienced are "probative of whether a

reasonable person would have been afraid under

the same circumstances." Hill, 187 F.3d at 702.

See Smith, 131 F.3d at 689. In addition, we

observed that a "defendant’s actions can rise to

the level of intimidation if he confronted a bank

employee during the commission of the crime, even

if the defendant was unarmed or did not

explicitly threaten a bank employee." Hill, 187

F.3d at 701.

 As demonstrated in the cases we have cited with

approval in prior decisions, Clark’s mere demand

that Kottke give him money not belonging to him

is behavior that may rise "to the level of

intimidation." Hill, 187 F.3d at 701. See Jones,

932 F.2d at 625. In United States v. Hopkins, 703

F.2d 1102, 1103 (9th Cir. 1983), an unarmed

defendant had spoken calmly and made no threats,

but the court held that "threats implicit in . .

. written and verbal demands for money" were

sufficient evidence of intimidation. Similarly,
in United States v. Henson, 945 F.2d 430, 439

(1st Cir. 1991), the court held that the

defendant neither displayed a weapon nor

expressed a threat of bodily harm, but his

"emphatic" written demand that the teller "put

fifties and twenties into an envelope now!!" was

enough to intimidate an ordinary person. See also

United States v. Robinson, 527 F.2d 1170, 1171-72

(6th Cir. 1975) (finding that the defendant’s

instruction to the teller to "give me all your

money" and his coat which could have concealed a

weapon, was sufficient to constitute

intimidation).

 No matter how one interprets Clark’s manners as

polite or non-violent, the combination of his

actions still amount to intimidation. Clark

handed the teller a note demanding that she

"place all of your twenties, fifties and hundred

dollar bills on the counter," and then told the

teller that "this is a hold-up." Indeed, Kottke

testified that she feared for her safety during

and after the encounter with Clark, and that as

a result of the hold-up, was unable to sleep at

night. Because it is reasonable for Kottke to

suspect and fear that Clark might use physical

force to compel satisfaction of his demand for

money, we are of the opinion that an ordinary

person would reasonably feel threatened by

Clark’s behavior.

III.

 Clark’s demand note, his confirmation to Kottke

that he was committing a "holdup," his taking of

$2500 of the bank’s money without the bank’s

consent and the evidence of Kottke’s fright, when

considered in their totality, amount to

sufficient evidence that Clark used intimidation

when he robbed M&I. Based on the totality of the

evidence, a rational trier of fact could have

found that the evidence presented was sufficient

to establish each and every element of the crime,

including intimidation, beyond a reasonable

doubt. Accordingly, the judgment of the district

court is

AFFIRMED.