Opinion ID: 3028829
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Use of Force or Intimidation.

Text: 2 Although the discussion in Nicholas pertained to aider and abettor liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2, our analysis there is relevant to our inquiry here. 4 The act of forcefully entering the cab of the tow truck to steal the towed cars was also sufficient by itself to establish the use of force or intimidation. However, there is more. As we have just noted, the coconspirators shot a truck driver and a bystander, and one of them threatened to shoot a passenger. Any suggestion that the evidence does not establish the use of force or intimidation is patently frivolous. Johnson incorrectly concludes that, because the jury acquitted him of using firearms in relation to a crime of violence, the jury could not conclude that he used force or intimidation as required by § 2119. See Appellant’s Br. at 23-25. However, that argument ignores Johnson’s responsibility for the violence and intimidation of his codefendants during the carjacking. Nicholas, supra. Accordingly, Johnson’s challenge to his conviction is also without merit.