the France opinion by declining to answer the question directly presented by this case: “Finally, we need not decide in this case whether § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F) would apply to a defendant who announced during a robbery that he had a gun. In this case France claimed to have dynamite, which could blow up the entire bank, not just the people in the immediate vicinity.” Id. The government now asks that we reach the question left unanswered by France. Before embarking on that inquiry, we respond to Jennings’s argument that we are no longer bound by our holding and reasoning in France because of an intervening change in the language of the Guidelines provision at issue. After France was decided, the United States Sentencing Commission amended the text of § 2B3.1 in two significant h Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Gibson, 155 F.3d 844, 846-47
holding that the statement i have a gun absent mitigating circumstances would lead an ordinary teller to fear being shot holding that i have a gun merits an enhancement because a reasonable teller would believe that failure to comply would result in being fatally shot holding that a note stating i have a gun i have nothing to lose warrants the threatofdeath enhancement because a reasonable teller would have been in fear for her life holding that the statement i have a gun would cause a reasonable teller to fear being shot and that the phrase i am willing to use it would make a fear of death even more likely holding that i have a gun is sufficient to justify the sentencing enhancement because it merely requires a teller to make the reasonable inference that a robber would use the gun he claimed to have if he did not receive the money he demanded