Court Opinion

ID: 9491099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:03:41.423773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:30.435196
License: Public Domain

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit
Judge, dissenting.
I must part ways with my two learned and esteemed colleagues today because I simply cannot agree that, as a matter of law, the defendant expressly threatened the bank teller with death by saying “I have a gun” without either doing or saying anything more. At the very least, I believe it was within the district court’s discretion to conclude, on the facts before it, that Carbaugh’s statement did not amount to an express threat to kill the teller.
When the district court sentenced Carbaugh last year, the robbery guideline mandated a two-level increase in the defendant’s offense level “if an express threat of death was made.” U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F) (Nov. 1995). The commentary explained what was meant by “an express threat of death”:
An “express threat of death,” as used in subsection (b)(2)(F), may be in the form of an oral or written statement, act, gesture, or combination thereof. For example, an oral or written demand using words such as “Give me the money or I will kill you”, “Give me the money or I will pull the pin on the grenade I have in my pocket”, “Give me the money or I will shoot you”, “Give me your money or else (where the defendant draws his hand across his throat in a slashing motion)”, or “Give me the money or you are dead” would constitute an express threat of death. The court should consider that the intent of the underlying provision is to provide an increased offense level for cases in which the offenders) engaged in conduct that would instill in a reasonable person, who is a victim of the offense, “significantly greater fear than that necessary to constitute an element of the offense of robbery.”
Id. comment, (n.6).
It certainly is the law of this circuit that the statement “I have a gun,” when coupled with additional words or conduct, can constitute an “express threat of death” for purposes of the robbery guideline. United States v. Hunn, 24 F.3d 994, 997-98 (7th Cir.1994); see also United States v. Jones, 83 F.3d 927, 929 (7th Cir.1996); United States v. Robinson, 20 F.3d 270, 276 (7th Cir.1994). Might “I have a gun,” standing alone, be sufficient to constitute an express threat of death? United States v. Bomski, 125 F.3d 1115, 1118 (7th Cir.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 898, 139 L.Ed.2d 883, and cert, denied sub nom. Ferguson v. United States, — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 1091, 140 L.Ed.2d 147 (1998), suggests that it can be. But Bomski cites Hunn for that proposition, and Hunn said nothing of the sort. As Judge Eschbach points out (ante at 793-94 n. 2), the fact that the bank robber in Hunn made a pointing gesture through the pocket of his coat when he said that he was armed was essential to the court’s holding. See 24 F.3d at 997 (“We ... hold that a bank robber’s pointing his hand through his coat pocket, while claiming to have a gun, can be a sentence-enhancing, death-threat expression under the plain text of Guideline § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F).”) (italics mine); id. at 998 (“Having determined that Hunn’s non-verbal act may be an expressed death-threat under § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F), we next must evaluate the district court’s factual findings.”) (italics mine); id. at 999 (“Hunn’s December 28th death-threat constituted a union of words and gestures”) (footnote omitted) (italics mine).1 I can envision some circumstances in *796which “I have a gun” might alone qualify as an express threat of death. If, for example, a bank teller responded to the robber’s demand for money with a plea for him not to kill her and the robber replied “Well then, you’d better do as I say, because I have a gun,” I think that the robber’s statement reasonably could be construed as an express threat of death. In that scenario, the context of the statement imbues the declaration of possession with the threatening quality that the guideline required. Absent that context, the words “I have a gun,” standing alone, would not constitute an express threat to kill; only an additional statement or gesture—the finger drawn across the throat, for example (see Application Note 6)—could convey that message with the particularity that the guideline mandated. See, e.g., Jones, 83 F.3d at 929 (robber told bank tellers that he had a gun, that it was “no joke,” and warned them not to sound any alarm or he would use the gun); Robinson, 20 F.3d at 276 (robber stated, inter alia, “I have a gun and am not afraid to use it”) (emphasis supplied). I certainly agree that “I have a gun” would cause any reasonable teller to fear for her safety. See ante at 794. But a teller would likely experience that fear anytime she knows or suspects that a robber is armed, and instilling fear in the victim is an element of robbery. 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (defining bank robbery to mean, in part, the taking of money by force or violence or intimidation); see Hunn, 24 F.3d at 999 (Easterbrook, J., dissenting), citing United States v. Ray, 21 F.3d 1134 (D.C.Cir.1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 894, 116 S.Ct. 246, 133 L.Ed.2d 172 (1995). The stated purpose of the two-level enhancement for express death threats was to distinguish conduct which instilled “significantly greater fear than that necessary to constitute an element of the offense of robbery.” § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F) comment, (n.6). I am not convinced that “I have a gun,” unaccompanied by other threatening conduct, serves such a distinguishing function.
What is perhaps more important to emphasize is that our precedents on this subject have never said that “I have a gun,” whatever the surrounding circumstances, invariably or even usually qualifies _ as an “express threat of death.” In Hunn, we took considerable care to say simply that the statement, coupled with a pointing gesture, might be a threat of death. See 24 F.3d at 997 (“We ... hold that a bank robber’s pointing his hand through his coat pocket, while claiming to have a gun, can be a sentence-enhancing, death-threat expression under the plain text of Guideline § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F).”) (italics mine); id. at 998 (“Thus, we conclude that Hunn’s conduct may be of the type that is significantly greater than necessary to constitute an element of the offense of bank robbery.”) (italics mine); id. (“Having determined that Hunn’s non-verbal act may be an expressed death-threat under § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F), we next must evaluate the district court’s factual findings.”) (italics mine). Even our opinion in Bomski, which puts an extremely expansive spin on Hunn, says only that “the statement T have a gun’ can satisfy the Guidelines’ requirement.” 125 F.3d at 1118 (italics mine). By saying that the statement can constitute an express threat of death, we have left room for .the possibility that the district court might reasonably conclude that “I have a gun” does not amount to an express threat to kill, depending on the surrounding facts. Indeed, upon recognizing, as my brothers do, that we owe “due deference” to the district court’s application of the guidelines to the facts of the case, 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e), the limits of our prior cases become clear. At the very most, we have held that “I have a gun” can be an express threat of death, not that it necessarily is under any particular set of circumstances. The law of this circuit, coupled with the deference commanded by section 3742(e), grants the district courts ample room to make different judgments on this question even on the same set of facts.
None of the accompanying circumstances noted in our previous “I have a gun” cases was present here. Carbaugh did not threaten to use the gun, nor is there proof in the record that he made any kind of gesture that *797conveyed a threat nonverbally. Carbaugh may have made some type of pointing gesture when he said that he had a gun, but because the government declined the opportunity to put on evidence to that effect, I agree with my colleagues that we must assume no gesture was made. Ante at 792. What we confront in this case, then, is the statement “I have a gun” standing alone. Given the absence of the additional facts present in our prior eases, and the limitation inherent in our pronouncement that “I have a gun” can constitute an express threat of death, it is not at all clear to me why Judge Alesia was compelled to conclude that Carbaugh’s statement met the requirements of the guideline.
Judge Alesia was careful to note the distinctions between this case and its predecessors. In contrast to both Jones and Robinson, Carbaugh “did not express any readiness or willingness to use his weapon against the teller” (Sentencing Tr. 17); “[h]e simply stated that he had a gun” (id.). Hunn, too, presented a distinct set of circumstances:
In Hunn the robber warned the teller not to pull any tricks, that he was watching, as he pretended to point a gun at the teller. Those words and conduct clearly were intended to make the teller think that he had a gun trained on her and that if she pulled any tricks, quote, unquote, she would be shot.
In this case, in contrast, the defendant simply stated he had a gun but did not otherwise warn or threaten the teller, and he did not act as if he had a gun pointed at the teller.
Sentencing Tr. 18. Judge Alesia acknowledged that Carbaugh’s conduct may have constituted an implied threat to the teller, but in his view it did not constitute an “express” threat—it was not “clear,” “definite,” “explicit,” “plain,” “direct” or “unmistakable.” Sentencing Tr. 20, citing Black’s Law Dictionary 580 (6th ed.1990). He noted that Judge Williams had reached the same conclusion based on similar facts in United States v. Springer, No. 96 CR 478, 1997 WL 160755 (N.D.Ill. April 4, 1997).
Granting Judge Alesia’s careful analysis the due deference to which it is entitled, I do not see where it is that he erred. My colleagues emphasize that a robber’s declaration that he is armed increases the teller’s fear of death. Ante at 794. Again, I do not disagree. But does that statement represent an express threat of death, designed to instill in the victim a significantly greater of fear than that usually attending robbery? See Application Note 6. Even if we accept that “I have a gun” can be construed as an express threat, I cannot accept that it must be so construed as a matter of law, which is essentially what my colleagues appear to be saying. See ante at 795 (“we have no doubt that Carbaugh’s statement would cause a reasonable teller to fear death”).
The effect of the court’s holding is to read “express”out of the guideline. That is a step our prior cases never purported to take. We have never said anything more than what common sense tells us-that a death threat can be expressed through a variety of words and gestures, not just by saying “I will kill you.” Today, however, the court holds that the threat need not be expressed in any fashion, so long as the teller could infer that her life is in danger. With all due respect to my esteemed colleagues, I cannot reconcile that approach with the plain language of the pre-amendment version of the guideline.
The court’s holding might well be defensible under the new version of the guideline, which notably omits the requirement that the threat be “express.” The amended version, however, did not take effect until several months after the district court sentenced Carbaugh. My colleagues indicate that we need not consider whether the revision is substantive (in which case we would look solely to the pre-amendment version) or clarifying (in which case we could look to the amended version for guidance), because the amendment simply adopts the prior view of this circuit. Ante at 793; see U.S.S.G. § lBl.ll(b)(2); United States v. Caicedo, 937 F.2d 1227, 1234-35 (7th Cir.1991). But as I have indicated, we have never until today held that an inferred threat is sufficient to trigger the two-level enhancement; dropping the requirement that the threat be express, *798which is what the amendment accomplishes, thus represents a significant and substantive departure from the case law of this circuit. Eliminating any doubt as to the nature of the change is the revision in the accompanying commentary. To qualify for the two-level enhancement, the robber’s threat need no longer instill in the victim “significantly greater fear than that necessary to constitute an element of the offense of robbery”; it is instead sufficient now if the robber’s words and/or conduct instill “a fear of death.” See U.S.S.G.App. C, Amendment 552 (effective Nov. 1, 1997); § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F), comment. (n.6) (Nov.1997). The sweep of the enhancement is thus much broader than it was before, confirming that the change is substantive rather than clarifying. Consequently, the new version of the guideline does not support the court’s holding in this preamendment case.
The Sentencing Guidelines have greatly complicated the task of sentencing judges. It is not at all unusual for judges to be faced with multiple disputes over the application of various sentencing enhancements and reductions in one case. Resolving such disputes may require briefing from the parties, hours of legal research, and in some eases lengthy evidentiary hearings. Looking at the record in this case, I am impressed with the care that Judge Alesia took in addressing the issue before us. In announcing his ruling, he reviewed the language of the guideline and the commentary, he surveyed our precedents on the subject, and then he methodically outlined his reasons for concluding, under the particular circumstances of this case, that Carbaugh’s declaration that he possessed a gun was not sufficient to convey an express threat of death. Sentencing Tr.15-21. His holding was not categorical; he did not suggest that “I have a gun” could never be construed as a death threat for purposes of the guideline. Instead, he simply considered Carbaugh’s statement in context 'and concluded that under the circumstances it did not reasonably convey a threat to Mil. We owe Judge Alesia’s thoroughly reasoned application of the guideline “due deference,” 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e), and granting him that deference I believe the correct result would be to affirm the sentence he imposed. With the utmost respect to my two colleagues, I therefore dissent.

. The bank robber in Bomski said that he had a bomb, not a gun. The fact that he claimed to have a weapon of mass destruction may alone distinguish Bomski. See 125 F.3d at 1118. There is something more, however: the robber placed a bag on the counter as he announced *796"this is a bomb,” a gesture arguably equivalent to the kind of pointing gesture accompanying the statement in Hunn. See ante at 793-794.