Opinion ID: 175425
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Otherwise Used a Dangerous Weapon

Text: We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the Guidelines, and review for clear error the court's factual findings. United States v. Alderman, 601 F.3d 949, 951(9th Cir.2010). We have not decided whether the application of the Sentencing Guidelines to the facts is reviewed de novo or for abuse of discretion. United States v. Laurienti, 611 F.3d 530, 552 (9th Cir.2010). With regard to dangerous weapons, the Sentencing Guidelines' Application Notes define brandished and otherwise used as follows:  Brandished: [A]ll or part of the weapon was displayed, or the presence of the weapon was otherwise made known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the weapon was directly visible to that person. Accordingly, although the dangerous weapon does not have to be directly visible, the weapon must be present. [2]  Otherwise Used: [T]he 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. n.1(C) (defining brandished); id. § 1B1.1 cmt. n.1(I) (defining otherwise used). In support of the contention that Albritton merely brandished the pistol, his attorney argues that the entire robbery lasted less than three minutes, the BB pistol was displayed for no more than a minute-and-a-half, and the pistol was brandished for probably less than 10 or 15 seconds. In addition, during his change of plea hearing in the district court, when asked if he pointed the BB pistol at anyone, Albritton stated: I can't recall actually pointing it. I didn't it wasn't a real gun; so I didn't want them to even look at it. I just ran in and yelled. And I think confusion just set in then. This statement, however, is refuted by the surveillance video, which shows Albritton pointing the gun directly at each of the two credit union employees. Albritton erroneously relies on United States v. Moerman for the proposition that a defendant otherwise used a weapon only when his or her actions and/or statements directly threatened an individual with the use of the firearm if the person being threatened did not comply with the defendant's demands. 233 F.3d 379, 381 (6th Cir.2000). Moerman was decided under a prior version of the Guidelines, which expansively defined brandished as meaning that the weapon was pointed or waved about, or displayed in a threatening manner. Id. at 380. After revision of the Guidelines' definition of brandished, the Sixth Circuit recognized that Moerman 's distinction [between explicit and implicit threats] is no longer supported. United States v. Bolden, 479 F.3d 455, 462 (6th Cir.2007). In United States v. Villar , the First Circuit distinguished between the current Guidelines' definitions of brandished and otherwise used. 586 F.3d 76, 90 (1st Cir.2009). According to Villar, a weapon is otherwise used once there is specific leveling of the weapon at another person. Id. Brandishing is a general display of weaponry. Id. (explaining this distinction, drawn in United States v. LaFortune, 192 F.3d 157, 161 (1st Cir.1999), survives the Guidelines' revision, as it is fully consistent with the amended definition of `brandished'). Villar 's demarcation between brandished and otherwise used is consistent with dictionaries, which define the verb brandish as: 1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly. 2. To display ostentatiously. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 224 (4th ed.2000). See also The Random House Dictionary of the English Language 254 (2d ed.1987) (defining the verb brandish as to shake or wave, as a weapon; flourish). We agree with the First Circuit's distinction and adopt it. Applying that distinction to this case, it is clear that Albritton otherwise used the BB pistol. Albritton pointed the pistol directly at the teller and ordered her Down, Down! In addition, Albritton specifically leveled the weapon at loan officer Zeiss in directing her across the room. Thus, we affirm the district court's offense level increase on this ground.