.

05

Works Cited
There are no sources in the current document.

We have been appointed to represent Eldon Canter in the case of United States v.
Canter. Canter is charged with one count of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d).

On January 5 of this year, Mr. Canter robbed the First State Bank. After he entered the
bank, he approached a teller and pulled from his pocket a crudely carved wooden
replica of a 9 mm Beretta handgun. He had carved the replica from a block of pinewood
and stained it with a dark walnut wood stain to make it look black. He drilled a hole in
the barrel end in an attempt to make it look like a real Beretta.
The teller was so frightened that he only glanced at the wooden gun. He believed it was
real. The teller at the next window looked at the replica and afterward stated that she
was fairly certain at the time that it was fake. No one else noticed whether the wooden
replica was real.
Please determine whether, in light of the facts of this case, there is sufficient evidence
to support the charge that Mr. Canter committed bank robbery by use of a “dangerous
weapon.”
Statutory Law: 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d), Bank robbery and incidental crimes, provides:
Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, from the
person or presence of another … any property or money or any other thing of value
belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of, a bank….
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
Whoever, in committing, or in attempting to commit, any offense defined in subsections
(a) and (b) of this section, assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the life of any person
by use of a dangerous weapon or device, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than 25 years, or both.
Case Law: United States v. Martinez-Jimenez, 864 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1989) (d) if it is
used in a manner that puts victims in fear for their safety.
**Statutory Definition**: According to 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), a "dangerous weapon" is
implied in the context of bank robbery to be an object used to put in jeopardy the life of
any person by force, violence, or intimidation.
**Case Law Precedent**: The case of United States v. Martinez-Jimenez established
that a toy gun can be considered a "dangerous weapon" under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) if it
is used in a manner that puts victims in fear for their safety.
**Perception of Danger**: The perception of the weapon by the victims plays a crucial
role in determining its dangerousness. If the object, despite being non-functional or a
replica, causes fear or intimidation, it may fulfill the statutory definition of a dangerous
weapon.
**Legal Analysis**: In light of the case law and statutory definition, the wooden replica
wielded by Mr. Canter could be considered a "dangerous weapon" if it was used in a
way that caused the bank teller to believe it was real and to feel intimidated or in
danger.
- **Evidence Consideration**: The belief of the teller that the wooden gun was real, and
the subsequent fear experienced could be sufficient evidence to support the charge of
armed bank robbery with a dangerous weapon.
 - **Defense Strategy**: The defense could argue that the wooden replica does not meet
the criteria of a dangerous weapon if it can be proven that Mr. Canter did not intend to
intimidate or that the teller's belief was not reasonable.
- **Jury's Role**: Ultimately, it would be up to a jury to decide whether

The wooden replica in Mr. Canter's case induced a sufficient level of fear to be
considered a "dangerous weapon" under the law.
- **Legal Outcome**: The determination of whether Mr. Canter's wooden replica
constitutes a "dangerous weapon" will significantly impact the potential penalties,
including the length of imprisonment if convicted.
What is the penalty for robbery without the use of a dangerous weapon?
**Penalty for Bank Robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)) **: The penalty for bank robbery
without the use of a dangerous weapon, as defined under
18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), can result in imprisonment for up to 20 years and/or a fine.
- **Lesser Offenses**: If the amount taken does not exceed $1,000, the offense is
considered a lesser offense and can result in imprisonment for up to one year and/or a
fine.
- **Aggravating Factors**: The presence of aggravating factors, such as the use of a
dangerous weapon, can increase The maximum penalty to 25 years of imprisonment.
- **Fine Amounts**: The fine for bank robbery without a dangerous weapon can be
substantial, up to $250,000, depending on the specifics of the case.
- **Federal Jurisdiction**: Bank robbery is a federal crime, and thus, the penalties are
governed by federal law, regardless of the state in which the crime occurred.
- **Probation and Parole**: Convicted individuals may also be subject to probation or
parole, which includes additional conditions and supervision following release from
prison.
- **Restitution**: In addition to imprisonment and fines, offended
● To: Tracye K Pina
From: Sean J. Reynolds, Esq.
Re: United States v. Canter; armed bank robbery with a dangerous weapon

We have been appointed to represent Eldon Canter in the case of United States v.
Canter. Canter is charged with one count of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d).
On January 5 of this year, Mr. Canter robbed the First State Bank. After he entered the
bank, he approached a teller and pulled from his pocket a crudely carved wooden
replica of a 9 mm Beretta handgun. He had carved the replica from a block of pinewood
and stained it with a dark walnut wood stain to make it look black. He drilled a hole in
the barrel end in an attempt to make it look like a real Beretta.
The teller was so frightened that he only glanced at the wooden gun. He believed it was
real. The teller at the next window looked at the replica and afterward stated that she
was fairly certain at the time that it was fake. No one else noticed whether the wooden
replica was real.
Please determine whether, in light of the facts of this case, there is sufficient evidence
to support the charge that Mr. Canter committed bank robbery by use of a “dangerous
weapon.”
Statutory Law: 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d), Bank robbery and incidental crimes, provides:
Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, from the
person or presence of another … any property or money or any other thing of value
belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of, a bank….
 3

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
Whoever, in committing, or in attempting to commit, any offense defined in subsections
(a) and (b) of this section, assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the life of any person
by use of a dangerous weapon or device, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than 25 years, or both.
Case Law: United States v. Martinez-Jimenez, 864 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1989) (d) if it is
used in a manner that puts victims in fear for their safety.
**Statutory Definition**: According to 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), a "dangerous weapon" is
implied in the context of bank robbery to be an object used to put in jeopardy the life of
any person by force, violence, or intimidation.
**Case Law Precedent**: The case of United States v. Martinez-Jimenez established
that a toy gun can be considered a "dangerous weapon" under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) if it
is used in a manner that puts victims in fear for their safety.
**Perception of Danger**: The perception of the weapon by the victims plays a crucial
role in determining its dangerousness. If the object, despite being non-functional or a
replica, causes fear or intimidation, it may fulfill the statutory definition of a dangerous
weapon.
**Legal Analysis**: In light of the case law and statutory definition, the wooden replica
wielded by Mr. Canter could be considered a "dangerous weapon" if it was used in a
way that caused the bank teller to believe it was real and to feel intimidated or in
danger.

- **Evidence Consideration**: The belief of the teller that the wooden gun was real, and
the subsequent fear experienced could be sufficient evidence to support the charge of
armed bank robbery with a dangerous weapon.

- **Defense Strategy**: The defense could argue that the wooden replica does not meet
the criteria of a dangerous weapon if it can be proven that Mr. Canter did not intend to
intimidate or that the teller's belief was not reasonable.

- **Jury's Role**: Ultimately, it would be up to a jury to decide whether the wooden

replica in Mr. Canter's case induced a sufficient level of fear to be considered a
"dangerous weapon" under the law.

- **Legal Outcome**: The determination of whether Mr. Canter's wooden replica

constitutes a "dangerous weapon" will significantly impact the potential penalties,
including the length of imprisonment if convicted.
What is the penalty for robbery without the use of a dangerous weapon?
**Penalty for Bank Robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)) **: The penalty for bank robbery
without the use of a dangerous weapon, as defined under
18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), can result in imprisonment for up to 20 years and/or a fine.
- **Lesser Offenses**: If the amount taken does not exceed $1,000, the offense is
considered a lesser offense and can result in imprisonment for up to one year and/or a
fine.

- **Aggravating Factors**: The presence of aggravating factors, such as the use of a

dangerous weapon, can increase the maximum penalty to 25 years of imprisonment.
- **Fine Amounts**: The fine for bank robbery without a dangerous weapon can be
substantial, up to $250,000, depending on the specifics of the case.

- **Federal Jurisdiction**: Bank robbery is a federal crime, and thus, the penalties are
governed by federal law, regardless of the state in which the crime occurred.

- **Probation and Parole**: Convicted individuals may also be subject to probation or

parole, which includes additional conditions and supervision following release from
prison.
- **Restitution**: In addition to imprisonment, fines, and offender.
- **Legal Outcome**: The determination of whether Mr. Canter's wooden replica
constitutes a "dangerous weapon" will significantly impact the potential penalties,
including the length of imprisonment if convicted.
What is the penalty for robbery without the use of a dangerous weapon?
**Penalty for Bank Robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)) **: The penalty for bank robbery
without the use of a dangerous weapon, as defined under
18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), can result in imprisonment for up to 20 years and/or a fine.
- **Lesser Offenses**: If the amount taken does not exceed $1,000, the offense is
considered a lesser offense and can result in imprisonment for up to one year and/or a
fine.
- **Aggravating Factors**: The presence of aggravating factors, such as the use of a
dangerous weapon, can increase the maximum penalty to 25 years of imprisonment.
- **Fine Amounts**: The fine for bank robbery without a dangerous weapon can be
substantial, up to $250,000, depending on the specifics of the case.
- **Federal Jurisdiction**: Bank robbery is a federal crime, and thus, the penalties are
governed by federal law, regardless of the state in which the crime occurred.
- **Probation and Parole**: Convicted individuals may also be subject to probation or
parole, which includes additional conditions and supervision following release from
prison.
- **Restitution**: In addition to imprisonment and fines, offenders may be ordered to
pay "restitution" to the victims or the bank for any losses incurred because of the
robbery.
- **Sentencing Guidelines**: Federal sentencing guidelines, which consider the
defendant's criminal history and the characteristics of the offense, will influence the
actual sentence given.
- **Plea Bargaining**: In some cases, plea bargaining may result in reduced charges
or penalties, especially if the defendant cooperates with law enforcement or provides
substantial assistance in other investigations.
**Robbery**: Involves taking something of value directly from another person by force
or fear. It is a crime against a person and typically involves theft, force, or intimidation.

- **Force or Fear**: Robbery necessarily involves the use of force or the threat of force,
while burglary does not require force; simply entering without permission with criminal
intent suffices.
- **Location**: Burglary involves entering a structure, whereas robbery involves taking
something directly from a person.
- **Theft**: While both crimes may involve theft, robbery always does, as it involves
taking property from a person. Burglary may not involve theft if the intended crime inside
the building is not theft.
- **Intent**: Burglary requires the intent to commit a crime inside the building at the time
of entry, regardless of whether the crime is completed.
 5

- **Penalties**: The penalties for robbery and burglary can vary, with robbery often
carrying harsher penalties due to the element of force or fear against a person.
**Burglary**: Entails illegally entering a building with the intent to commit a crime
inside, which does not necessarily have to be theft. It is considered a property crime.
**Robbery**: Involves the taking of property from another person by force, intimidation,
or threat of force. It is a direct crime against a person and is considered a more serious
offense due to the element of force.
- **Force or Threat**: The key difference lies in the use of force or threat; robbery
requires this element, while larceny does not.
● -**Direct Interaction**: Robbery usually involves a direct interaction with the victim,
whereas larceny can occur without the victim being present or aware at the time of the
crime.

- **Legal Definitions**: The legal definitions of robbery and larceny may vary slightly by
jurisdiction, but the distinction between the two is consistent in terms of the presence or
absence of force or intimidation.
Due to the violent nature of robbery, it often carries harsher legal penalties than larceny,
which is categorized as a misdemeanor unless the value of the stolen property qualifies
it as grand larceny.
- **Severity of Penalties**: is a cornerstone in the legal system, serving as a
deterrent to prevent individuals from committing crimes. (However, the
effectiveness of this approach has been a subject of debate among scholars and
policymakers.)
**Larceny**: Refers to the unlawful taking and carrying away of someone's property
without their consent and without the use of force or threat. It is typically treated as a
lesser offense compared to robbery.
In the case of United States v. Canter, the charge of armed bank robbery under 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) hinges on whether the wooden replica of a firearm presented
by Mr. Canter constitutes a "dangerous weapon." The statute delineates that an
individual is culpable if they intimidate or assault any person or jeopardize the life of any
person using a dangerous weapon or device during the commission of a bank robbery.
The definition of a dangerous weapon is pivotal in this context.
"Case law", has interpreted a dangerous weapon to include any object that, based on
the manner of its use or intended use, can cause death or serious bodily injury. The
perception of the weapon by the victim can also be a critical factor. In United States v.
Martinez, the case of United States v. Martinez-Jimenez, 864 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1989),
the court was presented with the question of whether a toy gun constitutes a
"dangerous weapon" under the federal bank robbery statute, specifically 18 U.S.C. §
2113(d). The defendant, Gilbert Martinez-Jimenez, appealed his conviction following a
bench trial on one count of armed bank robbery, contending that the trial court erred in
its conclusion that the toy gun he wielded during the robbery was a "dangerous
weapon." The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment,
holding that a toy gun can be considered a dangerous weapon within the statute's
meaning. The court reasoned that the use of a toy gun during a robbery creates similar
risks to those created by an unloaded or inoperable genuine gun, such as causing
victims greater apprehension, necessitating a more deliberate response from law
enforcement, and increasing the likelihood of an armed response from police or guards,
which in turn raises the risk to the physical security of victims, bystanders, and the
perpetrators themselves. This decision aligns with the court's rationale in previous
cases, such as McLaughlin, where a toy gun was also deemed a "dangerous weapon"
under the same statute. The case highlights the legal principle that the perception of
danger can be as impactful as actual danger, particularly in the context of criminal law
and the protection of public safety.
In Mr. Canter's situation, the wooden replica, although not a functional firearm, was
crafted and presented in a manner that caused at least one teller to believe it was a real
handgun, which resulted in intimidation. This factor could potentially satisfy the element
of the statute requiring the use of a dangerous weapon. However, the determination of
whether the wooden replica is a dangerous weapon may also consider the intent of Mr.
Canter and the overall circumstances of the robbery. The fact that another teller
suspected the gun was fake and that no one else noticed the replica could be significant
in assessing the level of intimidation and perceived danger.
The court may also examine the physical characteristics of the replica and the context in
which it was displayed. If the replica was brandished in a manner that a reasonable
person could believe it to be a real firearm, this could further support the charge.
Conversely, if the evidence suggests that the replica was unlikely to be perceived as a
real weapon, this could undermine the charge.
The subjective belief of the teller who thought the gun was real, along with the objective
appearance of the replica, will be central to the court's evaluation.
The question of sufficient evidence for the charge against Mr. Canter will rest on a
detailed analysis of the facts surrounding the incident, the characteristics of the wooden
replica, and the reactions of the bank employees. The prosecution must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the wooden replica was used in a manner that qualifies as a
dangerous weapon under the statute. This will involve careful consideration of both
objective and subjective elements, as well as relevant precedents that interpret the
statutory language and define the contours of what constitutes a dangerous weapon in
the context of a bank robbery. The defense may argue that the replica did not constitute
a dangerous weapon due to its inability to cause actual harm, while the prosecution will
focus on the perceived threat and the intimidation experienced by the victims. The
court's interpretation of these factors will be crucial in determining the outcome of the
charge against Mr. Canter.
The penalty for bank robbery in the United States, as defined under 18 U.S.C. § 2113,
varies depending on the specifics of the crime committed. Under subsection (a), if the
robbery involves force, violence, or intimidation, the perpetrator can be fined or face
imprisonment for up to twenty years. If the robbery includes an assault or puts
someone's life in jeopardy using a dangerous weapon or device, the imprisonment can
extend up to twenty-five years under subsection (d). For lesser offenses, such as
taking and carrying away property or money not exceeding $1,000, the penalty can be a
fine or imprisonment for not more than one year. It is important to note that these
penalties can be compounded by additional charges related to robbery, such as use of
a weapon, resulting in potentially longer sentences and larger fines. The "federal"
nature of these crimes means that the penalties are severe and reflect the seriousness
with which bank robbery is treated in the "United States legal system".

The case of United States v. Martinez-Jimenez, while specifically addressing the use
of a toy gun in a bank robbery, has broader implications for cases involving real guns
due to the legal interpretation of what constitutes a "dangerous weapon" under 18
U.S.C. § 2113(d). In instances where real guns are used, the statute's application is
straightforward, as real guns are inherently dangerous weapons. However, the
Martinez-Jimenez decision is pivotal because it expands the definition to include items
that are not inherently dangerous but become so through their use in a manner that
instills fear and can provoke violence.
This interpretation aligns with the statute's intent to protect individuals from threats to
their safety during the commission of a robbery, regardless of whether the weapon is
real or simulated.
Consequently, the precedent set by Martinez-Jimenez influences how courts view the
severity of using real guns in robberies, potentially leading to harsher sentences due to
 7

the clear and present danger they represent. The case underscores the principle that
the perception of danger can be as significant as actual danger, thereby affecting the
legal outcomes of cases involving real firearms where the threat to life and safety is
indisputable.
The distinction between a toy gun and a real gun is primarily based on their
construction, purpose, and legal implications. Real guns are designed to fire live
ammunition and are constructed from materials that can withstand the pressures
associated with firing bullets. They are typically made of metal and have mechanisms
for firing, reloading, and safety. Toy guns, on the other hand, are often made of plastic
or other non-metallic materials and are designed to replicate the appearance of real
firearms without the capability to discharge live ammunition. Legally, toy guns are
required to have distinct markings, such as an orange tip, to differentiate them from real
firearms, although these can sometimes be altered or removed, which can lead to
dangerous situations.
In the context of legal scrutiny, as seen in cases like United States v. Martinez-Jimenez,
the differentiation between a "toy gun" and a "real gun" becomes crucial. The court's
interpretation of a "dangerous weapon" under the federal bank robbery statute extends
to items that, while not inherently dangerous, are used in a manner that instills fear and
can provoke violence. This means that a toy gun, when used in a robbery, can be
treated with the same severity as a real gun because of the perceived threat it
represents.
Furthermore, the difficulty in distinguishing between toys and real guns, especially in
high-stress situations, has led to tragic outcomes and has been a point of debate and
legislative action. Some states have passed laws requiring toy guns to be brightly
colored or have prominent fluorescent strips to prevent such confusion. However, the
effectiveness of these measures is debated, as modifications to both real and toy guns
can blur the lines of distinction.
In terms of safety, the resemblance of toy guns to real firearms poses significant risks,
particularly to children who may not grasp the gravity of the situation when handling
such toys. Studies have shown that most children cannot reliably distinguish between
real and toy guns, which underscores the importance of responsible storage and
handling of all firearms, whether real or imitation, to prevent accidents and
misunderstandings.
Considering recent events and the ongoing public discourse on gun violence, there is a
push for stricter gun laws.
Public opinion is divided, with some advocating for more stringent regulations to
enhance safety, while others emphasize the importance of the constitutional right to
bear arms. The legal implications of gun ownership are thus not static; they evolve with
shifting societal norms, legal interpretations, and legislative changes.
It is crucial for gun owners to be aware of the laws applicable in their jurisdiction and to
understand the potential liabilities associated with gun ownership. Failure to comply with
legal requirements can lead to serious consequences, not only for the individual owner
but also for the broader community. As such, responsible gun ownership involves a
commitment to understanding and adhering to the laws designed to prevent gun
violence and ensure the safety of all citizens.

The federal bank robbery statute, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2113, outlines various
offenses related to bank robbery and associated crimes. Specifically, subsection (d) of
this statute increases the penalties for bank robbery when anyone's life is put in
jeopardy by a dangerous weapon or device. The case of United States v. Martinez-
Jimenez, 864 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1989), is a pivotal case that addressed the definition of
a "dangerous weapon" in the context of bank robbery. In this case, the defendant,
Gilbert Martinez-Jimenez, was convicted of armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. §
2113(a) and (d), even though the "weapon" used was a toy gun. The court found that
the use of a toy gun during the robbery put lives in jeopardy because it instilled fear in
the victims, which is congruent with the legislative intent of the statute to deter actions
that threaten physical safety during a robbery.
This case has been influential in subsequent cases involving toy guns, as it established
that a toy gun can be considered a "dangerous weapon" if it is used in a manner that
endangers life or instills fear. For instance, in U.S. v. Simmons, the reasoning from
Martinez-Jimenez was followed, affirming that a toy gun fell within the meaning of a
"dangerous weapon" under the federal bank robbery statute. The rationale is that the
use of a toy gun in a robbery creates similar risks to using an unloaded or inoperable
genuine gun, such as causing victims to experience greater apprehension,
necessitating a more deliberate response from law enforcement, and increasing the
likelihood of an armed response, which in turn raises the risk to physical security of all
involved.
The Martinez-Jimenez decision underscores the seriousness with which the federal
legal system treats bank robberies, regardless of whether the weapon used is real or
fake. It reflects a broader legal principle that the potential harm and the perceived threat
during the commission of a crime can be just as significant as actual harm. This
principle is applied consistently across various jurisdictions, ensuring that the punitive
measures for bank robbery remain stringent to deter such crimes effectively.
The case serves as a precedent that has shaped the legal landscape regarding the use
of toy guns in the commission of crimes, particularly in the context of bank robberies,
where the distinction between real and fake weapons may not matter in terms of
sentencing and conviction.
In summary, while toy guns are intended for play and imitation, their realistic design can
lead to them being perceived as real, with serious legal and safety consequences.
The differentiation between the two is critical, not only for legal definitions and the
application of statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 2113 but also for public safety and the
prevention of potentially fatal misunderstandings. The ongoing debate and legislative
efforts aim to address these concerns by enhancing the visual differences between toy
and real guns, thereby aiding in their identification, and reducing the risks associated
with their confusion. Toy gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_gun

The federal bank robbery statute, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2113, outlines various
offenses related to bank robbery and associated crimes. Specifically, subsection
(d) of this statute increases the penalties for bank robbery when the life of any
person is put in jeopardy by the use of a dangerous weapon or device. The case
of United States v. §§§§§¶§§¶Martinez-Jimenez, 864 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1989), is a
pivotal case that addressed the definition of a "dangerous weapon" in the context
of bank robbery. In this case, the defendant, Gilbert Martinez-Jimenez, was
convicted of armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), despite the
fact that the "weapon" used was a toy gun. The court found that the use of a toy
gun during the robbery put lives in jeopardy because it instilled fear in the
victims, which is congruent with the legislative intent of the statute to deter
actions that threaten physical safety during a robbery.
This case has been influential in subsequent cases involving toy guns, as it
established that a toy gun can be considered a "dangerous weapon" if it is used
in a manner that endangers life or instills fear. For instance, in U.S. v. Simmons,
the reasoning from Martinez-Jimenez was followed, affirming that a toy gun fell
within the meaning of a "dangerous weapon" under the federal bank robbery
statute. The rationale is that the use of a toy gun in a robbery creates similar risks
to using an unloaded or inoperable genuine gun, such as causing victims to
 9

experience greater apprehension, necessitating a more deliberate response from

law enforcement, and increasing the likelihood of an armed response, which in
turn raises the risk to physical security of all involved.
The Martinez-Jimenez decision underscores the seriousness with which the
federal legal system treats bank robberies, regardless of whether the weapon
used is real or fake. It reflects a broader legal principle that the potential harm
and the perceived threat during the commission of a crime can be just as
significant as actual harm. This principle is applied consistently across various
jurisdictions, ensuring that the punitive measures for bank robbery remain
stringent to deter such crimes effectively. The case serves as a precedent that
has shaped the legal landscape regarding the use of toy guns in the commission
of crimes, particularly in the context of bank robberies, where the distinction
between real and fake weapons may not matter in terms of sentencing and
conviction.
In summary, while toy guns are intended for play and imitation, their realistic
design can lead to them being perceived as real, with serious legal and safety
consequences. The differentiation between the two is critical, not only for legal
definitions and the application of statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 2113 but also for public
safety and the prevention of potentially fatal misunderstandings. The ongoing
debate and legislative efforts aim to address these concerns by enhancing the
visual differences between toy and real guns, thereby aiding in their identification
and reducing the risks associated with their confusion.
● Case Overview: Eldon Canter is charged with armed bank robbery under 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), using a wooden replica of a gun.
● Legal Definitions: A “dangerous weapon” is defined as an object that puts
someone’s life in jeopardy by force, violence, or intimidation.
● Case Law Precedent: United States v. Martinez-Jimenez established that a toy
gun can be considered a “dangerous weapon” if it causes fear for safety.
● Penalties: Bank robbery without a dangerous weapon can result in up to 20 years
imprisonment; with a dangerous weapon, up to 25 years.
The page also discusses the implications of the perception of danger and the role
of the jury in determining whether the wooden replica qualifies as a “dangerous
weapon.”
What are some key factors that determine the penalties under 18 U.S. Code §
2113 for bank robbery offenses?
Under 18 U.S. Code § 2113 for bank robbery offenses, some key factors that
determine the penalties include:
● Amount Involved: The punishment may vary based on the amount stolen. For
example, there are distinctions in penalties for thefts under $100 compared to
higher amounts stolen[5].
● Use of Force or Violence: Penalties may be more severe if force, violence, or
threats were involved in the commission of the bank robbery or related offense.
● Type of Crime: The severity of the offense, such as robbery, theft, or other
criminal acts against financial institutions, can influence the penalties imposed.
● Type of Financial Institution: The law applies to banks, credit unions, and savings
and loan associations. The penalties may be influenced by the specific type of
institution targeted.
● Historical Context and Amendments: Previous legislative changes and
amendments made to the law over time could also impact the penalties under 18
U.S. Code § 2113.
These factors are crucial in determining the appropriate punishment for
individuals involved in bank robbery and related crimes as outlined in the statute.
 Under California law, a "deadly weapon" is an instrument either designed to be
lethal, or a dangerous implement that can be used lethally.
A "dangerous weapon," on the other hand, is not necessarily always deadly.
The unloaded pistol, although not "deadly," is "dangerous," because it can still
be used as a bludgeon.
The legislature has also focused on the reporting of weapons offenses since
health practitioners are required by law to report to law enforcement, both orally
and in writing, any patient who has suffered a wound from a knife, firearm, or
other deadly weapon.
This article explains California Penal Code Section 245, which pertains to assault
with a deadly weapon; Section 417, which outlaws the brandishing or use of any
deadly weapon other than a firearm; and Section 12020, which proscribes the
possession of weapons designed to be used primarily for destructive or harmful
purposes.

Chapter 2: Possession of Firearm, Ammunition, Destructive Device, or Dangerous

Weapon (Probation and Supervised Release Conditions)
1. Statutory Authority
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(8), the court may provide that the defendant “refrain
from possessing a firearm, destructive device, or other dangerous weapon.”
1. Standard Condition Language
You must not own, possess, or have access to a firearm, ammunition, destructive
device, or dangerous weapon (i.e., anything that was designed or was modified
for the specific purpose of causing bodily injury or death to another person, such
as nunchakus or tasers.
Purpose
● This condition serves the statutory sentencing purpose of public protection. 18
U.S.
● The federal bank robbery statute, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2113, outlines various
offenses related to bank robbery and associated crimes. Specifically, subsection
(d) of this statute increases the penalties for bank robbery when the life of any
person is put in jeopardy by the use of a dangerous weapon or device. The case
of United States v. §§§§§¶§§¶Martinez-Jimenez, 864 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1989), is a
pivotal case that addressed the definition of a "dangerous weapon" in the context
of bank robbery. In this case, the defendant, Gilbert Martinez-Jimenez, was
convicted of armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), despite the
fact that the "weapon" used was a toy gun. The court found that the use of a toy
gun during the robbery put lives in jeopardy because it instilled fear in the
victims, which is congruent with the legislative intent of the statute to deter
actions that threaten physical safety during a robbery.
This case has been influential in subsequent cases involving toy guns, as it
established that a toy gun can be considered a "dangerous weapon" if it is used
in a manner that endangers life or instills fear. For instance, in U.S. v. Simmons,
the reasoning from Martinez-Jimenez was followed, affirming that a toy gun fell
within the meaning of a "dangerous weapon" under the federal bank robbery
statute. The rationale is that the use of a toy gun in a robbery creates similar risks
to using an unloaded or inoperable genuine gun, such as causing victims to
experience greater apprehension, necessitating a more deliberate response from
law enforcement, and increasing the likelihood of an armed response, which in
turn raises the risk to physical security of all involved.
The Martinez-Jimenez decision underscores the seriousness with which the
 11

federal legal system treats bank robberies, regardless of whether the weapon
used is real or fake. It reflects a broader legal principle that the potential harm
and the perceived threat during the commission of a crime can be just as
significant as actual harm. This principle is applied consistently across various
jurisdictions, ensuring that the punitive measures for bank robbery remain
stringent to deter such crimes effectively. The case serves as a precedent that
has shaped the legal landscape regarding the use of toy guns in the commission
of crimes, particularly in the context of bank robberies, where the distinction
between real and fake weapons may not matter in terms of sentencing and
conviction.
In summary, while toy guns are intended for play and imitation, their realistic
design can lead to them being perceived as real, with serious legal and safety
consequences. The differentiation between the two is critical, not only for legal
definitions and the application of statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 2113 but also for public
safety and the prevention of potentially fatal misunderstandings. The ongoing
debate and legislative efforts aim to address these concerns by enhancing the
visual differences between toy and real guns, thereby aiding in their identification
and reducing the risks associated with their confusion.
○ Case Overview: Eldon Canter is charged with armed bank robbery under 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), using a wooden replica of a gun.
○ Legal Definitions: A “dangerous weapon” is defined as an object that puts
someone’s life in jeopardy by force, violence, or intimidation.
○ Case Law Precedent: United States v. Martinez-Jimenez established that a toy
gun can be considered a “dangerous weapon” if it causes fear for safety.
○ Penalties: Bank robbery without a dangerous weapon can result in up to 20 years
imprisonment; with a dangerous weapon, up to 25 years.
●

We have been appointed to represent Eldon Canter in the case of United States v.
Canter. Canter is charged with one count of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d).
On January 5 of this year, Mr. Canter robbed the First State Bank. After he entered the
bank, he approached a teller and pulled from his pocket a crudely carved wooden
replica of a 9 mm Beretta handgun. He had carved the replica from a block of pinewood
and stained it with a dark walnut wood stain to make it look black. He drilled a hole in
the barrel end in an attempt to make it look like a real Beretta.
The teller was so frightened that he only glanced at the wooden gun. He believed it was
real. The teller at the next window looked at the replica and afterward stated that she
was fairly certain at the time that it was fake. No one else noticed whether the wooden
replica was real.
Please determine whether, in light of the facts of this case, there is sufficient evidence
to support the charge that Mr. Canter committed bank robbery by use of a “dangerous
weapon.”
Statutory Law: 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d), Bank robbery and incidental crimes, provides:
Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, from the
person or presence of another … any property or money or any other thing of value
belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of, a bank….
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
Whoever, in committing, or in attempting to commit, any offense defined in subsections
(a) and (b) of this section, assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the life of any person
 by use of a dangerous weapon or device, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than 25 years, or both.
Case Law: United States v. Martinez-Jimenez, 864 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1989) (d) if it is
used in a manner that puts victims in fear for their safety.
**Statutory Definition**: According to 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), a "dangerous weapon" is
implied in the context of bank robbery to be an object used to put in jeopardy the life of
any person by force, violence, or intimidation.
**Case Law Precedent**: The case of United States v. Martinez-Jimenez established
that a toy gun can be considered a "dangerous weapon" under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) if it
is used in a manner that puts victims in fear for their safety.
**Perception of Danger**: The perception of the weapon by the victims plays a crucial
role in determining its dangerousness. If the object, despite being non-functional or a
replica, causes fear or intimidation, it may fulfill the statutory definition of a dangerous
weapon.
**Legal Analysis**: In light of the case law and statutory definition, the wooden replica
wielded by Mr. Canter could be considered a "dangerous weapon" if it was used in a
way that caused the bank teller to believe it was real and to feel intimidated or in
danger.
- **Evidence Consideration**: The belief of the teller that the wooden gun was real, and
the subsequent fear experienced could be sufficient evidence to support the charge of
armed bank robbery with a dangerous weapon.
- **Defense Strategy**: The defense could argue that the wooden replica does not meet
the criteria of a dangerous weapon if it can be proven that Mr. Canter did not intend to
intimidate or that the teller's belief was not reasonable.
- **Jury's Role**: Ultimately, it would be up to a jury to decide whether

The wooden replica in Mr. Canter's case induced a sufficient level of fear to be
considered a "dangerous weapon" under the law.
- **Legal Outcome**: The determination of whether Mr. Canter's wooden replica
constitutes a "dangerous weapon" will significantly impact the potential penalties,
including the length of imprisonment if convicted.
What is the penalty for robbery without the use of a dangerous weapon?
**Penalty for Bank Robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)) **: The penalty for bank robbery
without the use of a dangerous weapon, as defined under
18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), can result in imprisonment for up to 20 years and/or a fine.
- **Lesser Offenses**: If the amount taken does not exceed $1,000, the offense is
considered a lesser offense and can result in imprisonment for up to one year and/or a
fine.
- **Aggravating Factors**: The presence of aggravating factors, such as the use of a
dangerous weapon, can increase The maximum penalty to 25 years of imprisonment.
- **Fine Amounts**: The fine for bank robbery without a dangerous weapon can be
substantial, up to $250,000, depending on the specifics of the case.
- **Federal Jurisdiction**: Bank robbery is a federal crime, and thus, the penalties are
governed by federal law, regardless of the state in which the crime occurred.
- **Probation and Parole**: Convicted individuals may also be subject to probation or
parole, which includes additional conditions and supervision following release from
prison.
- **Restitution**: In addition to imprisonment and fines, offende
● To: Tracye K Pina
From: Sean J. Reynolds, Esq.
Re: United States v. Canter; armed bank robbery with a dangerous weapon
 13

We have been appointed to represent Eldon Canter in the case of United States v.
Canter. Canter is charged with one count of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d).
On January 5 of this year, Mr. Canter robbed the First State Bank. After he entered the
bank, he approached a teller and pulled from his pocket a crudely carved wooden
replica of a 9 mm Beretta handgun. He had carved the replica from a block of pinewood
and stained it with a dark walnut wood stain to make it look black. He drilled a hole in
the barrel end in an attempt to make it look like a real Beretta.
The teller was so frightened that he only glanced at the wooden gun. He believed it was
real. The teller at the next window looked at the replica and afterward stated that she
was fairly certain at the time that it was fake. No one else noticed whether the wooden
replica was real.
Please determine whether, in light of the facts of this case, there is sufficient evidence
to support the charge that Mr. Canter committed bank robbery by use of a “dangerous
weapon.”
Statutory Law: 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d), Bank robbery and incidental crimes, provides:
Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, from the
person or presence of another … any property or money or any other thing of value
belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of, a bank….
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
Whoever, in committing, or in attempting to commit, any offense defined in subsections
(a) and (b) of this section, assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the life of any person
by use of a dangerous weapon or device, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than 25 years, or both.
Case Law: United States v. Martinez-Jimenez, 864 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1989) (d) if it is
used in a manner that puts victims in fear for their safety.
**Statutory Definition**: According to 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), a "dangerous weapon" is
implied in the context of bank robbery to be an object used to put in jeopardy the life of
any person by force, violence, or intimidation.
**Case Law Precedent**: The case of United States v. Martinez-Jimenez established
that a toy gun can be considered a "dangerous weapon" under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) if it
is used in a manner that puts victims in fear for their safety.
**Perception of Danger**: The perception of the weapon by the victims plays a crucial
role in determining its dangerousness. If the object, despite being non-functional or a
replica, causes fear or intimidation, it may fulfill the statutory definition of a dangerous
weapon.
**Legal Analysis**: In light of the case law and statutory definition, the wooden replica
wielded by Mr. Canter could be considered a "dangerous weapon" if it was used in a
way that caused the bank teller to believe it was real and to feel intimidated or in
danger.

- **Evidence Consideration**: The belief of the teller that the wooden gun was real, and
the subsequent fear experienced could be sufficient evidence to support the charge of
armed bank robbery with a dangerous weapon.

- **Defense Strategy**: The defense could argue that the wooden replica does not meet
the criteria of a dangerous weapon if it can be proven that Mr. Canter did not intend to
intimidate or that the teller's belief was not reasonable.
- **Jury's Role**: Ultimately, it would be up to a jury to decide whether the wooden
replica in Mr. Canter's case induced a sufficient level of fear to be considered a
"dangerous weapon" under the law.

- **Legal Outcome**: The determination of whether Mr. Canter's wooden replica

constitutes a "dangerous weapon" will significantly impact the potential penalties,
including the length of imprisonment if convicted.
What is the penalty for robbery without the use of a dangerous weapon?
**Penalty for Bank Robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)) **: The penalty for bank robbery
without the use of a dangerous weapon, as defined under
18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), can result in imprisonment for up to 20 years and/or a fine.
- **Lesser Offenses**: If the amount taken does not exceed $1,000, the offense is
considered a lesser offense and can result in imprisonment for up to one year and/or a
fine.

- **Aggravating Factors**: The presence of aggravating factors, such as the use of a

dangerous weapon, can increase the maximum penalty to 25 years of imprisonment.

- **Fine Amounts**: The fine for bank robbery without a dangerous weapon can be
substantial, up to $250,000, depending on the specifics of the case.

- **Federal Jurisdiction**: Bank robbery is a federal crime, and thus, the penalties are
governed by federal law, regardless of the state in which the crime occurred.

- **Probation and Parole**: Convicted individuals may also be subject to probation or

parole, which includes additional conditions and supervision following release from
prison.
- **Restitution**: In addition to imprisonment, fines, and offender.
- **Legal Outcome**: The determination of whether Mr. Canter's wooden replica
constitutes a "dangerous weapon" will significantly impact the potential penalties,
including the length of imprisonment if convicted.
What is the penalty for robbery without the use of a dangerous weapon?
**Penalty for Bank Robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)) **: The penalty for bank robbery
without the use of a dangerous weapon, as defined under
18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), can result in imprisonment for up to 20 years and/or a fine.
- **Lesser Offenses**: If the amount taken does not exceed $1,000, the offense is
considered a lesser offense and can result in imprisonment for up to one year and/or a
fine.
- **Aggravating Factors**: The presence of aggravating factors, such as the use of a
dangerous weapon, can increase the maximum penalty to 25 years of imprisonment.
- **Fine Amounts**: The fine for bank robbery without a dangerous weapon can be
substantial, up to $250,000, depending on the specifics of the case.
- **Federal Jurisdiction**: Bank robbery is a federal crime, and thus, the penalties are
governed by federal law, regardless of the state in which the crime occurred.
- **Probation and Parole**: Convicted individuals may also be subject to probation or
parole, which includes additional conditions and supervision following release from
prison.
- **Restitution**: In addition to imprisonment and fines, offenders may be ordered to
pay "restitution" to the victims or the bank for any losses incurred because of the
 15

robbery.
- **Sentencing Guidelines**: Federal sentencing guidelines, which consider the
defendant's criminal history and the characteristics of the offense, will influence the
actual sentence given.
- **Plea Bargaining**: In some cases, plea bargaining may result in reduced charges
or penalties, especially if the defendant cooperates with law enforcement or provides
substantial assistance in other investigations.
**Robbery**: Involves taking something of value directly from another person by force
or fear. It is a crime against a person and typically involves theft, force, or intimidation.

- **Force or Fear**: Robbery necessarily involves the use of force or the threat of force,
while burglary does not require force; simply entering without permission with criminal
intent suffices.
- **Location**: Burglary involves entering a structure, whereas robbery involves taking
something directly from a person.
- **Theft**: While both crimes may involve theft, robbery always does, as it involves
taking property from a person. Burglary may not involve theft if the intended crime inside
the building is not theft.
- **Intent**: Burglary requires the intent to commit a crime inside the building at the time
of entry, regardless of whether the crime is completed.
- **Penalties**: The penalties for robbery and burglary can vary, with robbery often
carrying harsher penalties due to the element of force or fear against a person.
**Burglary**: Entails illegally entering a building with the intent to commit a crime
inside, which does not necessarily have to be theft. It is considered a property crime.
**Robbery**: Involves the taking of property from another person by force, intimidation,
or threat of force. It is a direct crime against a person and is considered a more serious
offense due to the element of force.
- **Force or Threat**: The key difference lies in the use of force or threat; robbery
requires this element, while larceny does not.
● -**Direct Interaction**: Robbery usually involves a direct interaction with the victim,
whereas larceny can occur without the victim being present or aware at the time of the
crime.

- **Legal Definitions**: The legal definitions of robbery and larceny may vary slightly by
jurisdiction, but the distinction between the two is consistent in terms of the presence or
absence of force or intimidation.
Due to the violent nature of robbery, it often carries harsher legal penalties than larceny,
which is categorized as a misdemeanor unless the value of the stolen property qualifies
it as grand larceny.
- **Severity of Penalties**: is a cornerstone in the legal system, serving as a
deterrent to prevent individuals from committing crimes. (However, the
effectiveness of this approach has been a subject of debate among scholars and
policymakers.)
**Larceny**: Refers to the unlawful taking and carrying away of someone's property
without their consent and without the use of force or threat. It is typically treated as a
lesser offense compared to robbery.
In the case of United States v. Canter, the charge of armed bank robbery under 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) hinges on whether the wooden replica of a firearm presented
by Mr. Canter constitutes a "dangerous weapon." The statute delineates that an
individual is culpable if they intimidate or assault any person or jeopardize the life of any
person using a dangerous weapon or device during the commission of a bank robbery.
The definition of a dangerous weapon is pivotal in this context.
"Case law", has interpreted a dangerous weapon to include any object that, based on
the manner of its use or intended use, can cause death or serious bodily injury. The
perception of the weapon by the victim can also be a critical factor. In United States v.
Martinez, the case of United States v. Martinez-Jimenez, 864 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1989),
the court was presented with the question of whether a toy gun constitutes a
"dangerous weapon" under the federal bank robbery statute, specifically 18 U.S.C. §
2113(d). The defendant, Gilbert Martinez-Jimenez, appealed his conviction following a
bench trial on one count of armed bank robbery, contending that the trial court erred in
its conclusion that the toy gun he wielded during the robbery was a "dangerous
weapon." The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment,
holding that a toy gun can be considered a dangerous weapon within the statute's
meaning. The court reasoned that the use of a toy gun during a robbery creates similar
risks to those created by an unloaded or inoperable genuine gun, such as causing
victims greater apprehension, necessitating a more deliberate response from law
enforcement, and increasing the likelihood of an armed response from police or guards,
which in turn raises the risk to the physical security of victims, bystanders, and the
perpetrators themselves. This decision aligns with the court's rationale in previous
cases, such as McLaughlin, where a toy gun was also deemed a "dangerous weapon"
under the same statute. The case highlights the legal principle that the perception of
danger can be as impactful as actual danger, particularly in the context of criminal law
and the protection of public safety.
In Mr. Canter's situation, the wooden replica, although not a functional firearm, was
crafted and presented in a manner that caused at least one teller to believe it was a real
handgun, which resulted in intimidation. This factor could potentially satisfy the element
of the statute requiring the use of a dangerous weapon. However, the determination of
whether the wooden replica is a dangerous weapon may also consider the intent of Mr.
Canter and the overall circumstances of the robbery. The fact that another teller
suspected the gun was fake and that no one else noticed the replica could be significant
in assessing the level of intimidation and perceived danger.
The court may also examine the physical characteristics of the replica and the context in
which it was displayed. If the replica was brandished in a manner that a reasonable
person could believe it to be a real firearm, this could further support the charge.
Conversely, if the evidence suggests that the replica was unlikely to be perceived as a
real weapon, this could undermine the charge.
The subjective belief of the teller who thought the gun was real, along with the objective
appearance of the replica, will be central to the court's evaluation.
The question of sufficiency of evidence for the charge against Mr. Canter will rest on a
detailed analysis of the facts surrounding the incident, the characteristics of the wooden
replica, and the reactions of the bank employees. The prosecution must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the wooden replica was used in a manner that qualifies as a
dangerous weapon under the statute. This will involve careful consideration of both
objective and subjective elements, as well as relevant precedents that interpret the
statutory language and define the contours of what constitutes a dangerous weapon in
the context of a bank robbery. The defense may argue that the replica did not constitute
a dangerous weapon due to its inability to cause actual harm, while the prosecution will
focus on the perceived threat and the intimidation experienced by the victims. The
court's interpretation of these factors will be crucial in determining the outcome of the
charge against Mr. Canter.
The penalty for bank robbery in the United States, as defined under 18 U.S.C. § 2113,
varies depending on the specifics of the crime committed. Under subsection (a), if the
robbery involves force, violence, or intimidation, the perpetrator can be fined or face
imprisonment for up to twenty years. If the robbery includes an assault or puts
someone's life in jeopardy using a dangerous weapon or device, the imprisonment can
extend up to twenty-five years under subsection (d). For lesser offenses, such as
taking and carrying away property or money not exceeding $1,000, the penalty can be a
 17

fine or imprisonment for not more than one year. It is important to note that these
penalties can be compounded by additional charges related to robbery, such as use of
a weapon, resulting in potentially longer sentences and larger fines. The "federal"
nature of these crimes means that the penalties are severe and reflect the seriousness
with which bank robbery is treated in the "United States legal system".

The case of United States v. Martinez-Jimenez, while specifically addressing the use
of a toy gun in a bank robbery, has broader implications for cases involving real guns
due to the legal interpretation of what constitutes a "dangerous weapon" under 18
U.S.C. § 2113(d). In instances where real guns are used, the statute's application is
straightforward, as real guns are inherently dangerous weapons. However, the
Martinez-Jimenez decision is pivotal because it expands the definition to include items
that are not inherently dangerous but become so through their use in a manner that
instills fear and can provoke violence.
This interpretation aligns with the statute's intent to protect individuals from threats to
their safety during the commission of a robbery, regardless of whether the weapon is
real or simulated.
Consequently, the precedent set by Martinez-Jimenez influences how courts view the
severity of using real guns in robberies, potentially leading to harsher sentences due to
the clear and present danger they represent. The case underscores the principle that
the perception of danger can be as significant as actual danger, thereby affecting the
legal outcomes of cases involving real firearms where the threat to life and safety is
indisputable.
The distinction between a toy gun and a real gun is primarily based on their
construction, purpose, and legal implications. Real guns are designed to fire live
ammunition and are constructed from materials that can withstand the pressures
associated with firing bullets. They are typically made of metal and have mechanisms
for firing, reloading, and safety. Toy guns, on the other hand, are often made of plastic
or other non-metallic materials and are designed to replicate the appearance of real
firearms without the capability to discharge live ammunition. Legally, toy guns are
required to have distinct markings, such as an orange tip, to differentiate them from real
firearms, although these can sometimes be altered or removed, which can lead to
dangerous situations.
In the context of legal scrutiny, as seen in cases like United States v. Martinez-Jimenez,
the differentiation between a "toy gun" and a "real gun" becomes crucial. The court's
interpretation of a "dangerous weapon" under the federal bank robbery statute extends
to items that, while not inherently dangerous, are used in a manner that instills fear and
can provoke violence. This means that a toy gun, when used in a robbery, can be
treated with the same severity as a real gun because of the perceived threat it
represents.
Furthermore, the difficulty in distinguishing between toys and real guns, especially in
high-stress situations, has led to tragic outcomes and has been a point of debate and
legislative action. Some states have passed laws requiring toy guns to be brightly
colored or have prominent fluorescent strips to prevent such confusion. However, the
effectiveness of these measures is debated, as modifications to both real and toy guns
can blur the lines of distinction.
In terms of safety, the resemblance of toy guns to real firearms poses significant risks,
particularly to children who may not grasp the gravity of the situation when handling
such toys. Studies have shown that most children cannot reliably distinguish between
real and toy guns, which underscores the importance of responsible storage and
handling of all firearms, whether real or imitation, to prevent accidents and
misunderstandings.
Considering recent events and the ongoing public discourse on gun violence, there is a
push for stricter gun laws.
Public opinion is divided, with some advocating for more stringent regulations to
enhance safety, while others emphasize the importance of the constitutional right to
bear arms. The legal implications of gun ownership are thus not static; they evolve with
shifting societal norms, legal interpretations, and legislative changes.
It is crucial for gun owners to be aware of the laws applicable in their jurisdiction and to
understand the potential liabilities associated with gun ownership. Failure to comply with
legal requirements can lead to serious consequences, not only for the individual owner
but also for the broader community. As such, responsible gun ownership involves a
commitment to understanding and adhering to the laws designed to prevent gun
violence and ensure the safety of all citizens.

The federal bank robbery statute, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2113, outlines various
offenses related to bank robbery and associated crimes. Specifically, subsection (d) of
this statute increases the penalties for bank robbery when anyone's life is put in
jeopardy by a dangerous weapon or device. The case of United States v. Martinez-
Jimenez, 864 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1989), is a pivotal case that addressed the definition of
a "dangerous weapon" in the context of bank robbery. In this case, the defendant,
Gilbert Martinez-Jimenez, was convicted of armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. §
2113(a) and (d), even though the "weapon" used was a toy gun. The court found that
the use of a toy gun during the robbery put lives in jeopardy because it instilled fear in
the victims, which is congruent with the legislative intent of the statute to deter actions
that threaten physical safety during a robbery.
This case has been influential in subsequent cases involving toy guns, as it established
that a toy gun can be considered a "dangerous weapon" if it is used in a manner that
endangers life or instills fear. For instance, in U.S. v. Simmons, the reasoning from
Martinez-Jimenez was followed, affirming that a toy gun fell within the meaning of a
"dangerous weapon" under the federal bank robbery statute. The rationale is that the
use of a toy gun in a robbery creates similar risks to using an unloaded or inoperable
genuine gun, such as causing victims to experience greater apprehension,
necessitating a more deliberate response from law enforcement, and increasing the
likelihood of an armed response, which in turn raises the risk to physical security of all
involved.
The Martinez-Jimenez decision underscores the seriousness with which the federal
legal system treats bank robberies, regardless of whether the weapon used is real or
fake. It reflects a broader legal principle that the potential harm and the perceived threat
during the commission of a crime can be just as significant as actual harm. This
principle is applied consistently across various jurisdictions, ensuring that the punitive
measures for bank robbery remain stringent to deter such crimes effectively.
The case serves as a precedent that has shaped the legal landscape regarding the use
of toy guns in the commission of crimes, particularly in the context of bank robberies,
where the distinction between real and fake weapons may not matter in terms of
sentencing and conviction.
In summary, while toy guns are intended for play and imitation, their realistic design can
lead to them being perceived as real, with serious legal and safety consequences.
The differentiation between the two is critical, not only for legal definitions and the
application of statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 2113 but also for public safety and the
prevention of potentially fatal misunderstandings. The ongoing debate and legislative
efforts aim to address these concerns by enhancing the visual differences between toy
and real guns, thereby aiding in their identification, and reducing the risks associated
with their confusion.
 19

Toy gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_gun

This case has been influential in subsequent cases involving toy guns, as it
established that a toy gun can be considered a "dangerous weapon" if it is used
in a manner that endangers life or instills fear. For instance, in U.S. v. Simmons,
the reasoning from Martinez-Jimenez was followed, affirming that a toy gun fell
within the meaning of a "dangerous weapon" under the federal bank robbery
statute. The rationale is that the use of a toy gun in a robbery creates similar
risks to using an unloaded or inoperable genuine gun, such as causing victims to
experience greater apprehension, necessitating a more deliberate response from
law
enforcement, and increasing the likelihood of an armed response, which in turn raises
the risk to physical security of all involved.
The Martinez-Jimenez decision underscores the seriousness with which the federal
legal system treats bank robberies, regardless of whether the weapon used is real or
fake. It reflects a broader legal principle that the potential harm and the perceived threat
during the commission of a crime can be just as significant as actual harm. This
principle is applied consistently across various jurisdictions, ensuring that the punitive
measures for bank robbery remain stringent to deter such crimes effectively. The case
serves as a precedent that has shaped the legal landscape regarding the use of toy
guns in the commission of crimes, particularly in the context of bank robberies, where
the distinction between real and fake weapons may not matter in terms of sentencing
and conviction.
In summary, while toy guns are intended for play and imitation, their realistic design can
lead to them being perceived as real, with serious legal and safety consequences. The
differentiation between the two is critical, not only for legal definitions and the
application of statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 2113 but also for public safety and the
prevention of potentially fatal misunderstandings. The ongoing debate and legislative
efforts aim to address these concerns by enhancing the visual differences between toy
and real guns, thereby aiding in their identification and reducing the risks associated
with their confusion.
● Case Overview: Eldon Canter is charged with armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. §
2113(a) and (d), using a wooden replica of a gun.
● Legal Definitions: A “dangerous weapon” is defined as an object that puts someone’s
life in jeopardy by force, violence, or intimidation.
● Case Law Precedent: United States v. Martinez-Jimenez established that a toy gun can
be considered a “dangerous weapon” if it causes fear for safety.
● Penalties: Bank robbery without a dangerous weapon can result in up to 20 years
imprisonment; with a dangerous weapon, up to 25 years.
The page also discusses the implications of the perception of danger and the role of the
jury in determining whether the wooden replica qualifies as a “dangerous weapon.”
what are some key factors that determine the penalties under 18 U.S. Code § 2113 for
bank robbery offenses?

Contents
Works Cited.................................................................................................................................................1

i
● Amount Involved: The punishment may vary based on the amount stolen. For example,
there are distinctions in penalties for thefts under $100 compared to higher amounts
stolen[5].
● Use of Force or Violence: Penalties may be more severe if force, violence, or threats
were involved in the commission of the bank robbery or related offense.
● Type of Crime: The severity of the offense, such as robbery, theft, or other criminal acts
against financial institutions, can influence the penalties imposed.
● Type of Financial Institution: The law applies to banks, credit unions, and savings and
loan associations. The penalties may be influenced by the specific type of institution
targeted.
● Historical Context and Amendments: Previous legislative changes and amendments
made to the law over time could also impact the penalties under 18 U.S. Code § 2113.
These factors are crucial in determining the appropriate punishment for individuals
involved in bank robbery and related crimes as outlined in the statute.
Under California law, a "deadly weapon" is an instrument either designed to be lethal, or
a dangerous implement that can be used lethally.
A "dangerous weapon," on the other hand, is not necessarily always deadly.
The unloaded pistol, although not "deadly," is "dangerous," because it can still be used
as a bludgeon.
The legislature has also focused on the reporting of weapons offenses since health
practitioners are required by law to report to law enforcement, both orally and in writing,
any patient who has suffered a wound from a knife, firearm, or other deadly weapon.
This article explains California Penal Code Section 245, which pertains to assault with a
deadly weapon; Section 417, which outlaws the brandishing or use of any deadly
weapon other than a firearm; and Section 12020, which proscribes the possession of
weapons designed to be used primarily for destructive or harmful purposes.

Chapter 2: Possession of Firearm, Ammunition, Destructive Device, or Dangerous

Weapon (Probation and Supervised Release Conditions)
2. Statutory Authority
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(8), the court may provide that the defendant “refrain from
possessing a firearm, destructive device, or other dangerous weapon.”
2. Standard Condition Language
You must not own, possess, or have access to a firearm, ammunition, destructive
device, or dangerous weapon (i.e., anything that was designed or was modified for the
specific purpose of causing bodily injury or death to another person, such as nunchakus
or tasers.
Purpose
● This condition serves the statutory sentencing purpose of public protection. 18 U.S.

● The Martinez-Jimenez decision underscores the seriousness with which the federal

legal system treats bank robberies, regardless of whether the weapon used is real or

fake. It reflects a broader legal principle that the potential harm and the perceived threat

during the commission of a crime can be just as significant as actual harm. This

principle is applied consistently across various jurisdictions, ensuring that the punitive

measures for bank robbery remain stringent to deter such crimes effectively. The case

serves as a precedent that has shaped the legal landscape regarding the use of toy

guns in the commission of crimes, particularly in the context of bank robberies, where
 21

the distinction between real and fake weapons may not matter in terms of sentencing

and conviction.

In summary, while toy guns are intended for play and imitation, their realistic design can

lead to them being perceived as real, with serious legal and safety consequences. The

differentiation between the two is critical, not only for legal definitions and the

application of statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 2113 but also for public safety and the

prevention of potentially fatal misunderstandings. The ongoing debate and legislative

efforts aim to address these concerns by enhancing the visual differences between toy

and real guns, thereby aiding in their identification and reducing the risks associated

with their confusion.

○ Case Overview: Eldon Canter is charged with armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. §

2113(a) and (d), using a wooden replica of a gun.

○ Legal Definitions: A “dangerous weapon” is defined as an object that puts someone’s

life in jeopardy by force, violence, or intimidation.

○ Case Law Precedent: United States v. Martinez-Jimenez established that a toy gun can

be considered a “dangerous weapon” if it causes fear for safety.

○ Penalties: Bank robbery without a dangerous weapon can result in up to 20 years

imprisonment; with a dangerous weapon, up to 25 years.

The Crime of Burglary

{7} Section 30-16-3 defines the crime of burglary as “the unauthorized entry of any vehicle,

watercraft, aircraft, dwelling or other structure, movable or immovable, with the intent to

commit any felony or theft therein.” As such, Section 30-16-3 expresses “a radical departure

from its common law predecessor,” which required “(1) breaking and (2) entering (3) a dwelling

house (4) of another (5) in the nighttime (6) with the intent to commit a felony therein.” State

v. Rodriguez, 101 N.M. 192, 193, 679 P.2d 1290, 1291 (Ct. App. 1984); see State v. Bybee, 109

N.M. 44, 45, 781 P.2d 316, 317 (Ct. App. 1989). Thus, our Legislature has chosen to keep only

the element of entry completely intact. Rodriguez, 101 N.M. at 193, 679 P.2d at 1291. As this

Court has held, entry contemplates penetration of a space by either a person or an instrument.

State v. Tixier, 89 N.M. 297, 298-99, 551 P.2d 987, 988-89 (Ct. App. 1976) (holding that a one-
half-inch penetration with an instrument is enough to effectuate an entry; “[a]ny penetration,

however slight, of the interior space is sufficient”).

{8} This Court’s opinions in Rodriguez and State v. Reynolds, 111 N.M. 263, 804 P.2d 1082 (Ct.

App. 1990), define the limits of entry in the context of vehicle burglary. In Rodriguez, the

defendant reached into the uncovered bed of a pickup truck and removed a toolbox with the

intent of taking it unlawfully. 101 N.M. at 193, 679 P.2d at 1291. This Court held that such an

entry is sufficient to constitute a burglary. “[W]e hold that the bed of a pickup truck, as a part of

a vehicle, falls within the statutorily protected area.” Id. at 194, 679 P.2d at 1292. A similar

issue prompted the analysis in Reynolds. In that case, like the one before us, police found the

defendant on the ground beneath a vehicle. Testimony at trial established that he reached into

the engine compartment from underneath in an apparent attempt to remove the vehicle’s

starter. Reynolds, 111 N.M. at 264-65, 804 P.2d at 1083-84. This Court, citing Tixier, held that

such an act is sufficient to sustain a conviction for burglary. Reynolds, 111 N.M. at 270, 804 P.2d

at 1089. “In establishing a burglary, [a]ny penetration, however slight, of the interior space is

sufficient [to constitute entry]. Since there was no dispute that [the] defendant’s hand

penetrated the engine compartment of the vehicle, there would have been no rational basis for

the jury to find attempted burglary but not burglary itself[.]” Id. (second alteration in original)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, a jury could reasonably conclude that a

burglary had occurred. Id.

{9} We are sympathetic to the unique facts of Defendant’s case. He was found draining fuel

from the tank of a van with no license plate, several broken windows, and four flat tires. The

investigating officer testified that the van would have been unsafe to drive, and Hanson, the

owner, testified that the van might have been sitting in the alley for as many as six months prior

to the incident. In fact, during direct examination, Hanson stated that although the van had not

been abandoned, his plan for it was to “just give it to charity or try to sell it for the engine.”
 23

{10} Necessary or not, that which might be a prudent measure of justice must bow to that

which the State may legally prove. Simply put, Defendant was properly charged. He did not

have permission to enter the van, and his actions clearly constitute entry under New Mexico’s

burglary statute.

{11} By Defendant’s own uncontroverted admission to police, he laid down on the ground

beneath the van, procured an instrument, and used it to create a hole in the tank. As fuel

dripped from the hole, he caught it in a container specifically positioned to do so. He did not

own the van or the fuel. Such facts are plainly analogous to this Court’s opinions in Rodriguez

and Reynolds. A fuel tank—attached as it is, to a vehicle—is unquestionably a part of that

vehicle and absolutely necessary for its primary function as a mode of transportation. Any

penetration of a vehicle’s perimeter is thus a penetration of the vehicle itself. See Reynolds, 111

N.M. at 270, 804 P.2d at 1089. Like the defendant’s entry of the truck bed in Rodriguez, this

Defendant reached into the undercarriage of the van and removed fuel from inside the tank

located there. See Rodriguez, 101 N.M. at 193, 679 P.2d at 1291. In fact, Defendant went even

further by puncturing the tank in order to effectuate the theft. But perhaps even more

analogous is Reynolds. In that case, the defendant reached into the engine compartment from

underneath so he could remove the starter. Reynolds, 111 N.M. at 265, 270, 804 P.2d at 1084,

1089. Likewise, Defendant in this case reached into the fuel tank, albeit via an instrument, in

order to remove fuel, and as this Court has held, “[a]ny penetration, however slight … is

sufficient.” Id. at 270, 804 P.2d at 1089.

{12} The facts of the instant case fit cleanly within the conceptual framework established by

Reynolds and Rodriguez, and understandably, Defendant had difficulty distinguishing those

opinions. He thus relies heavily upon out-of-state cases to support his argument, but each is

readily distinguishable in either law or fact. For instance, in People v. Davis, 18 Cal. 4th 712, 76

Cal. Rptr. 2d 770, 958 P.2d 1083, 1090 (1998), the defendant placed a forged check into the

deposit window of a check cashing business. The court held that such an act, although
technically an entry with the intent to commit a theft, should nevertheless not be considered

an entry for purposes of California’s burglary statute. Id. Likewise, in R.E.S. v. State, 396 So. 2d

1219, 1220 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981), the court analyzed whether, under Florida’s burglary

statute, siphoning gas from the tank of a vehicle constituted an entry. It held that siphoning did

not constitute an entry and based its holding on the notion that Florida’s burglary statute

contemplates only vehicle compartments “which can be entered either wholly or partially by a

person; e.g., engine and passenger compartments, trunks, etc.” Id. Finally, the Florida Supreme

Court reached the same conclusion in Drew v. State, 773 So. 2d 46, 47 (Fla. 2000), when it

considered whether the removal of tires or hub-caps from a vehicle constituted an entry. In

that opinion, the court held that such an act could not constitute a burglary because Florida’s

common law requires that the theft actually take place “within” the vehicle. Removal of a tire

or hubcap, which requires disassembly, thus does not take place within the vehicle as required

by the statute. Id. at 52.

{13} On the facts and New Mexico law before us, the reasoning of these out-of-state authorities

fails to persuade. The facts of Davis, for instance, are readily distinguishable. In that case, the

California court held that an entry had not occurred because the chute in which the defendant

placed the forged check was regularly used by other patrons who also deposited checks. Such

an entry does not violate “the occupant’s possessory interest in the building.” Davis, 76 Cal.

Rptr. 2d 770, 958 P.2d at 1089. In the case before us, Hanson’s possessory interest in the van

was clearly violated when Defendant punctured its tank. Nor are we persuaded by R.E.S. and

Drew, the Florida opinions, which both proceed from interpretations of Florida’s case law. In

those cases, it is apparent that burglary in Florida contemplates the entry of a vehicle

compartment large enough to accommodate at least a part of a person and that the theft

actually occurred within the vehicle. See Drew, 773 So. 2d at 52; R.E.S., 396 So. 2d at 1220. Not

so in New Mexico, where a slight entry by use of an instrument is sufficient. See, e.g., Reynolds,

111 N.M. at 264-65, 804 P.2d at 1083-84 (providing that removal of a starter from the engine

compartment is sufficient to constitute burglary); Tixier, 89 N.M. at 298-99, 551 P.2d at 988-89
 25

(including the use of an instrument in the definition of an entry). We turn now to Defendant’s

other argument on appeal.

***

Conclusion

{16} For the reasons stated above, we hold that using a nail to penetrate a vehicle’s gas tank

constitutes an entry under Section 30-16-3. We also hold that substantial evidence supports

each of Defendant’s convictions. We affirm.

i