Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Ray HICKS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-20
Citations: 66 F. App'x 694
Docket Number: No. 02-30343; D.C. No. CR-01-60034-MRH
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Douglas Ray HICKS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 66
Pages: 694–695

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Douglas Ray HICKS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 02-30343.
D.C. No. CR-01-60034-MRH.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 2003.
Decided May 20, 2003.
Before PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Douglas Ray Hicks appeals the 92-month sentence imposed after his guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Hicks argues that the district court erred by applying a two-level enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F) for making a "threat of death" during the robbery. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.
Hicks handed the teller a note which read: "This is a robbery. I am armed." He contends that the note was insufficient in the circumstances of this case to "instill in a reasonable person, who is a victim of the offense, a fear of death." U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F), cmt. 6. We disagree. Given the context, a bank teller could have reasonably interpreted the note as a threat to her life if she did not comply with his demands. Id. Thus, in the circumstances of this case the district court did not err by applying the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.