In this bank robbery case, we affirm a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2113 although the robber did not have a weapon, did not use force, and did not verbally threaten the bank teller. We join the Fifth Circuit in defining intimidation as an act reasonably calculated to put another in fear.
On November 13, 1989, Michael Duane Graham, the appellant, entered a Barnett Bank in Bradenton, Florida, and approached a teller. Graham gave the teller a note which stated:
*1443 This is a robbery. ■ Please give me small, unmarked bills, touch off no alarms, and alert no one for at least ten minutes. Thank you.
The teller initially thought that Graham was joking, but after observing his glares and stares, she handed him $8,700 from her drawer. While she pulled the money from her drawer, Graham continued to stare at her and lean towards her over the teller counter. Graham also stared at the teller’s nameplate. Although the teller had some bait money in her drawer, she did not give Graham any of this money because she was afraid to do so. Additionally, the teller testified that she was afraid to touch the alarm while Graham was standing in front of her. The teller never saw Graham with a gun nor did she see Graham clinch his fists or make any other obvious threatening gestures. The teller, however, could not see Graham’s entire body or know if he had a weapon.
On November 16, 1989, Sarasota, Florida, police arrested Graham for bank robbery. A federal grand jury indicted Graham on one count of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). A jury found Graham guilty of bank robbery, and the district court sentenced Graham, as a career offender, to 225 months imprisonment followed by 3 years supervised release. The court refused to grant Graham a two-level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility.
ISSUES
Graham raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court erred by failing to direct a verdict on the charge of violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113; (2) whether the court properly sentenced him as a career offender; and (3) whether the district court erred in refusing to grant him a two-level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility.
DISCUSSION
1.Motion for Directed Verdict
Graham contends that the district court should have granted his motion tor a directed verdict because a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2113 requires proof of robbery using force, violence, or intimidation. Graham argues that the government proved neither force nor violence because he did not have a weapon nor did he threaten the teller in any way. Additionally, citing
United States v. Higdon,
2.Career Offender Sentence
Graham argues that he should not have been sentenced as a career offender because the instant offense, the bank robbery, was not a “crime of violence.” According to Graham, the United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.2 defines a crime of violence as one that (a) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another; or (b) is burglary of a dwelling, arson, or extortion, involves the use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. Graham fails to note, however, that section 4B1.2(l)(i), comment note 2, lists robbery as a crime of violence. Thus, this claim must fail.
3.Acceptance of Responsibility
Finally, Graham argues that the district court erred m failing to grant him a two-level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. The district court held a hearing to consider Graham’s request for a two-level adjustment and denied this request after finding that Graham allowed the case to proceed to trial and did not wish to comment on his involvement in the of
*1444
fense until he was actually sentenced. The district court’s ruling is not clearly erroneous.
See United States v. Spraggins,
Accordingly, the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED