Opinion ID: 739354
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Threatening Use of a Deadly Weapon

Text: 19 Chee also asserts that because he did not possess a deadly weapon, the court erred in imposing a three-level enhancement under § 2A2.2(b)(2). 20 Section 2A2.2(b)(2)(C) provides for a three-level increase when a dangerous weapon was brandished or its use was threatened. USSG § 2A2.2(b)(2). The district court found that, while it was clear that [Chee] did not brandish either a gun or a knife, ... [there is] no doubt that [Begaye] was threatened with a weapon; thought that there was a weapon in the defendant's possession, in his vehicle; and felt that the weapon would be used on her if she resisted further. Therefore, the court found that there was a threat of the use of a weapon, a deadly weapon in this instance, that justifies the three-level increase. 21 It appears that no circuit has addressed this question and very few cases discuss the threat of weapon use at all. This may be attributed to the logical and obvious argument that threatening to use a weapon is a threat whether or not a weapon is present. Accordingly, a plain reading of the Guideline provides an adequate basis for our decision. The Guideline does not require the actual presence of a weapon and to do so would essentially make the threatened clause a redundancy to the preceding brandished requirement. See USSG § 2A2.2(b)(2)(C). 22 United States v. Sims supports our decision. 952 F.2d 1014 (8th Cir.1991). In Sims, the Eighth Circuit addressed the threatened use of a weapon from the victim's standpoint. 952 F.2d at 1017. There, the defendant contracted with an informant to kill a government witness. The defendant gave the informant a gun and ammunition to use during the killing but never had any direct contact with the victim. The district court increased the defendant's offense level because his offense involved the threatened use of a weapon. Id. at 1016. On appeal, the defendant argued that, since he never directly threatened the victim with the gun, he could not have threatened to use a weapon. The court in Sims disagreed, noting that, from the point of view of the victim ... Sims' offense involved the threatened use of a dangerous weapon. Id. at 1017. 23 This approach is consistent with the Guideline's language, which simply refers to threatening the use of a weapon and not to actually possessing the weapon. Under this formulation, the district court's factual finding that Begaye believed Chee was threatening her and legal finding that Chee's admitted threat to use a knife or gun constituted threatening the use of a weapon were not erroneous.