in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity.” United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § IB 1.3(a)(1)(B). In this case Ruger squarely testified that Hazel had provided Mitchell and him with guns at the same time at a robbery-planning meeting the day before the robbery. This alone made the likelihood of a gun discharging objectively reasonably foreseeable. Moreover, Mitchell was robbing a federally insured bank that was protected by an armed guard. Indeed, on the facts of this case, the guard was disarmed at gunpoint. The district court could therefore find that it was objectively reasonably foreseeable that, in the course of armed robbery of an armed facility, the discharge of a weapon was likely to occur. See United States v. Molina, 106 F.3d 1118, 1122 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Triplett, 104 F.3d
holding that a conviction for florida armed robbery is a crime of violence under the armed career criminal act holding that the officer had reasonable belief that the occupants of the vehicle were armed where the officer knew that drug dealers are frequently armed and therefore frisk of the vehicle was permissible holding that an officer did not employ excessive force in shooting a suspect who turned out to be unarmed because at the time of the shooting the officer had a reasonable belief that the suspect posed a threat and was armed holding that armed robbery suspect was entitled to bail hearing even though armed robbery was considered capital offense under mississippi law because maximum sentence was life imprisonment holding that it was  reasonable for the defendant to foresee that in an encounter between armed robbers and armed guards protecting an armored car a shooting was likely to occur