Opinion ID: 155018
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: dangerous weapon otherwise used

Text: 6 U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1 provides enhancements for various uses of a firearm or a dangerous weapon, as follows: 7 (A) If a firearm was discharged, increase by 7 levels; (B) if a firearm was otherwise used, increase by 6 levels; (C) if a firearm was brandished, displayed, or possessed, increase by 5 levels; (D) if a dangerous weapon was otherwise used, increase by 4 levels; (E) if a dangerous weapon was brandished, displayed, or possessed, increase by 3 levels; ... 8 U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2). 9 The district court imposed a four-level enhancement under part (D), which requires that a dangerous weapon was otherwise used. Id. Gilkey argues that the court's findings reflect that a weapon was brandished, and that the court thus should have imposed a three-level enhancement under part (E). 10 A dangerous weapon was otherwise used by an individual when his conduct did not amount to the discharge of a firearm but was more than brandishing, displaying, or possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 cmt. 1(g). A dangerous weapon was brandished if it was pointed or waved about, or displayed in a threatening manner. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 cmt. 1(c). 11 At the sentencing hearing, the district court found that [a]ccording to the presentence report, Michael Peach otherwise used a dangerous weapon, that is a beebee gun, semiautomatic pistol, 1 in robbing Jimmie's Diner on April 10, 1995, pointed the gun at two employees in the course of the robbery [sic.]. R. Supp. Vol. IV at 9. Gilkey's counsel below objected to the U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1 sentence enhancement on the basis that Gilkey did not know and could not have foreseen that Peach had the weapon when he entered the restaurant. Counsel did not object on the basis that Peach's conduct constituted brandish[ing] a dangerous weapon under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(E), rather than otherwise us[ing] a weapon under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(D). In response to counsel's objections, the court held that it was reasonably foreseeable to [Gilkey] that Peach would use a weapon to threaten employees of the diner in the course of the robbery. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 cmt. 2(b)(1). The district court also adopted the findings of the Pre-Sentence Report, stating: The Court determines that the presentence investigation report and the previously stated findings are accurate and orders that those findings be incorporated [in its judgment]. R. Supp. Vol. IX at 14. The Pre-Sentence Report stated the following: 12 Michael Peach[ ] entered Jimmie's Diner Restaurant, and confronted a waitress.... He grabbed her by the neck and pointed a gun to her head, demanding money. She indicated that he almost lifted her from her feet, placing her face almost directly in his. She advised him that she could not provide him with any money at which time he left her and grabbed the shift supervisor/manager.... He forced [him] to an office area, while pointing a gun at him, and demanded that he open the safe and provide money. 13 R. Supp. Vol. II at p 10. 14 In light of the district court's factual findings, including those made directly by the court and those it adopted from the Pre-Sentence Report, this court determines that Michael Peach otherwise used a dangerous weapon because his conduct amounted to more than brandishing. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 cmt. 1(g) (explaining that a weapon was otherwise used if the conduct amounted to more than brandishing). Peach did not merely point, wave about, or display the weapon in a threatening manner. Instead, he (1) pointed it at the victims, (2) used it to threaten them, (3) pointed it at one victim's head while grabbing and lifting her by the neck and demanding money, and (4) grabbed another victim, forced him to an office area while pointing the gun at him, and demanded that he open the safe and provide money. 15 In United States v. Roberts, this court held that a criminal defendant otherwise used, as opposed to merely brandished, a knife when he approached his victim from behind while holding a knife in his right hand, put his right arm around the victim, and held the knife next to her face and neck while demanding money. 898 F.2d 1465, 1467, 1469-70 (10th Cir.1990). The facts of this case are the substantial equivalent of the facts in Roberts, and thus require the same conclusion that the weapon was otherwise used, rather than merely brandished. 16 Other circuits have treated various kinds of conduct as constituting otherwise using, as opposed to merely brandishing, a dangerous weapon. In United States v. Fuller, the Ninth Circuit found that the defendant's conduct 17 was more culpable than brandishing in two ways. First, the defendant ... caus[ed] the gun to come in contact with the teller's head.... Second, the defendant used the gun to threaten the [victim] and to force her to get up off the floor. By pointing the firearm at the [victim] and explicitly threatening to kill her if she did not stand, the defendant's conduct exceeded mere brandishing. 18 99 F.3d 926, 927 (9th Cir.1996). The district court's findings in this case do not specifically reveal whether there was any physical contact between the gun and the victim. It is clear, however, that the gun was not only brandished, but also used to directly threaten the victims and to force them to move according to Peach's directions. Though the findings do not specifically reveal that Peach explicitly verbalized a threat to kill, they do reveal that he used the gun, in connection with violent physical contact between himself and his victims, to threaten and to force movement. 19 In United States v. Johnson, the Third Circuit found that the defendant had otherwise used, rather than merely brandished, a dangerous weapon because he actually leveled the gun at the head of the victim at close range and verbalized a threat to discharge the weapon. 931 F.2d 238, 240 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 886, 112 S.Ct. 242, 116 L.Ed.2d 197 (1991); see also United States v. Seavoy, 995 F.2d 1414, 1421-22 (7th Cir.) (defendant otherwise used weapon because he pointed gun at victims' faces and heads, threatened to kill, and directed them at gunpoint to lie face down on floor), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 954, 114 S.Ct. 407, 126 L.Ed.2d 354 (1993). In the case at bar, not only did Peach point the weapon at one victim's head while at close range, he pointed it at her head while grabbing and lifting her by the neck and demanding money. He grabbed another victim while pointing the gun at him as well, and forced him to move as directed and to participate in the robbery. While the factual findings reveal no verbal threat, the essence of the conduct is similar to the facts in Johnson. The Johnson court stated: 20 The dictionary defines brandish as to shake or wave (a weapon) menacingly, and gives as synonyms flourish and wave. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 268 (1976). Although the inclusion of pointed in the Guideline definition makes it clear that pointing a weapon at, for example, bank tellers or customers during a bank robbery is included in the term brandish, we construe [pointed] in the context of the Guideline definition as denoting a generalized rather than a specific threat. 21 Johnson, 931 F.2d at 240. The facts of the case at bar, which include actual, physical seizing of the specific victim, the simultaneous pointing of the weapon at the victim, and the forced movement of the victim, indicate specific rather than general pointing of the gun. It does not matter whether the gun itself actually touched the victim. Thus, this court affirms the district court's imposition of a four-level enhancement on the grounds that the weapon was otherwise used in the robbery.