does not deny that he possessed the sledgehammer during the burglary, see id. at 63. The fact that he did not use the sledgehammer as a weapon is irrelevant to the issue of possession. To hold otherwise would directly contradict the plain meaning of this provision of the Guidelines, and would lead to absurd results. For example, a burglar could enter a bank carrying several guns and explosives and remain exempt from the two-level sentencing enhancement so long as those “tools of the trade” were used only to break open the safes. Accordingly, we hold that U.S.S.G. § 2B2.1(b)(4) requires only possession of a dangerous weapon, regardless of whether the dangerous weapon was employed as such during the commission of a crime. Cf. United States v. Lavender, 224 F.3d 939, 941 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Based on the facts of the case and the plain
holding that mere possession of a dangerous weapon is insufficient to support a charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon holding that a defendant possessed a dangerous weapon for purposes of ussg  2dllbl when law enforcement discovered a shotgun in the defendants home after the completion of the crimes holding that an unloaded gun was a dangerous weapon within the meaning of the federal bank robbery statute partly due to potential harm when used as a bludgeon holding that assault with dangerous weapon is general intent crime and that it is only necessary to prove that defendant did act of injuring another with dangerous instrument in intentional manner holding that because defendant possessed a screwdriver during the bank robbery and a screwdriver is properly classified as a dangerous weapon the district court did not err by applying the enhancement to him regarding ussg  2b31b2e which applies if a dangerous weapon was brandished displayed or possessed