F.3d 616, 618 (7th Cir.2005). Counsel questions wheth er the court appropriately applied a five-level upward adjustment for use of a gun during the robbery. See U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C). Because there was uncontroverted testimony from two tellers that the robber brandished a gun, we agree with counsel that the district court did not clearly err. We do not know that Barnes herself ever touched the gun, but she was properly held accountable for its use because the brandishment was conduct relevant to the robbery within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A), which defines relevant conduct as “all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused by the defendant.” See United States v. Wallace, 212 F.3d 1000, 1005 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Counsel next considers whether Barnes might
recognizing that a broad definition of stolen is consistent with the guidelines purposes and finding that the enhancement was properly applied where a defendant found a gun that was lost or mislaid by its owner who never authorized anyone to take the gun never sold it and never gave it away as a gift holding direct testimony tying a defendant to a gun was not required when the gun was found in the defendants truck and when the defendant had both ammunition for the gun and a rack in which it could have been kept holding that use of gun was attributable to defendant who aided and abetted armed robbery but never personally carried gun holding that i have a gun give me money may imply threat to use gun but was not an express threat of death holding that evidence was sufficient to prove defendant constructively possessed the gun where although defendant denied ownership of the gun it was found near a knife of which defendant claimed ownership and where defendant was aware of the presence of the gun