have dynamite,” we determined, was akin to the commentary’s grenade example even though France did not specifically threaten to use the dynamite to blow up the teller or the bank. Id. at 867. In the course of our analysis in France, we noted disagreement with the Eleventh Circuit, which had concluded that phrases such as “I have a gun” and “I have a gun and nothing to lose” were insufficiently “direct, distinct, or express” to constitute “express threat[s] of death.” Id. (quoting United States v. Tuck, 964 F.2d 1079, 1081 (11th Cir.1992)). The Eleventh Circuit’s view, we stated in France, was “unnecessarily cramped” because it would require a bank robber to use “magic words,” such as “I will use the dynamite if you don’t give me the money.” Id. at 868. Nonetheless, we con 7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Roberts, 253 F.3d 1131, 1137
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 the statement i have a gun is a threat of death because a reasonable teller upon hearing the statement normally and reasonably would fear that his or her life is in danger 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 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 absent mitigating circumstances would lead an ordinary teller to fear being shot