“would put an ordinary victim in reasonable fear for Ms or her life, is an express threat of death”); France, 57 F.3d at 866-67 (“[w]hat is determinative is whether a reasonable person, given the conduct of the defendant and the context in wMch it occurred, would experience significantly greater fear than the level of intimidation necessary to constitute an element of the offense of robbery”); Robinson, 20 F.3d at 276 (stating that “court should consider that the mtent of the underlying provision is to provide an increased offense level for eases m wMch the offender^) engaged in conduct that would instill m a reasonable person, who is a victim of the offense, significantly greater fear than that necessary to constitute an element of the offense of robbery”); Smith, 973 F.2d at 1378 (<HOLDING>). Although we agree that the commentary, by its
holding that robbers statement and gestures instilled greater fear than necessary to carry out the robbery recognizing equitable powers necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title holding that 1 usc  1 does not apply except where it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute holding that the use of an ethnic slur during an otherwise ordinary robbery was not enough to show that the robbers acted because of their victims ethnicity holding that the courts statement that the sentence was sufficient and a greater sentence is not necessary did not contradict the requirements of  3553a