We have been appointed to represent Eldon Canter

in the case of United States v. Canter. Canter is

charged with one count of armed bank robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d).
On January 5 of this year, Mr. Canter robbed the
First State Bank. After he entered the bank, he
approached a teller and pulled from his pocket a
crudely carved wooden replica of a 9 mm Beretta
handgun. He had carved the replica from a block of
pinewood and stained it with a dark walnut wood
stain to make it look black. He drilled a hole in the
barrel end in an attempt to make it look like a real
Beretta.
The teller was so frightened that he only glanced at
the wooden gun. He believed it was real. The teller
at the next window looked at the replica and
afterward stated that she was fairly certain at the
time that it was fake. No one else noticed whether
the wooden replica was real.
Please determine whether, in light of the facts of this
case, there is sufficient evidence to support the
charge that Mr. Canter committed bank robbery by
use of a “dangerous weapon.”
Statutory Law: 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d), Bank
robbery and incidental crimes, provides:
Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation,
takes, or attempts to take, from the person or
presence of another … any property or money or any
other thing of value belonging to, or in the care,
custody, control, management, or possession of, a
bank….
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not
more than 20 years, or both.
Whoever, in committing, or in attempting to commit,
any offense defined in subsections (a) and (b) of this
section, assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the
life of any person by use of a dangerous weapon or
device, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than 25 years, or both.
Case Law: United States v. Martinez-Jimenez, 864
F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1989) (d) if it is used in a manner
that puts victims in fear for their safety.
**Statutory Definition**: According to 18 U.S.C. §
2113(d), a "dangerous weapon" is implied in the
context of bank robbery to be an object used to put
in jeopardy the life of any person by force, violence,
or intimidation.
**Case Law Precedent**: The case of United States
v. Martinez-Jimenez established that a toy gun can
be considered a "dangerous weapon" under 18
U.S.C. § 2113(d) if it is used in a manner that puts
victims in fear for their safety.
**Perception of Danger**: The perception of the
weapon by the victims plays a crucial role in
determining its dangerousness. If the object, despite
being non-functional or a replica, causes fear or
intimidation, it may fulfill the statutory definition of a
dangerous weapon.
**Legal Analysis**: In light of the case law and
statutory definition, the wooden replica wielded by
Mr. Canter could be considered a "dangerous
weapon" if it was used in a way that caused the bank
teller to believe it was real and to feel intimidated or
in danger.
- **Evidence Consideration**: The belief of the teller
that the wooden gun was real, and the subsequent
fear experienced could be sufficient evidence to
support the charge of armed bank robbery with a
dangerous weapon.
- **Defense Strategy**: The defense could argue that
the wooden replica does not meet the criteria of a
dangerous weapon if it can be proven that Mr.
Canter did not intend to intimidate or that the teller's
belief was not reasonable.
- **Jury's Role**: Ultimately, it would be up to a jury
to decide whether

The wooden replica in Mr. Canter's case induced a

sufficient level of fear to be considered a "dangerous
weapon" under the law.
- **Legal Outcome**: The determination of whether
Mr. Canter's wooden replica constitutes a
"dangerous weapon" will significantly impact the
potential penalties, including the length of
imprisonment if convicted.
What is the penalty for robbery without the use of a
dangerous weapon?
**Penalty for Bank Robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)) **:
The penalty for bank robbery without the use of a
dangerous weapon, as defined under
18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), can result in imprisonment for
up to 20 years and/or a fine.
- **Lesser Offenses**: If the amount taken does not
exceed $1,000, the offense is considered a lesser
offense and can result in imprisonment for up to one
year and/or a fine.
- **Aggravating Factors**: The presence of
aggravating factors, such as the use of a dangerous
weapon, can increase The maximum penalty to 25
years of imprisonment.
- **Fine Amounts**: The fine for bank robbery without
 3

a dangerous weapon can be substantial, up to

$250,000, depending on the specifics of the case.
- **Federal Jurisdiction**: Bank robbery is a federal
crime, and thus, the penalties are governed by
federal law, regardless of the state in which the crime
occurred.
- **Probation and Parole**: Convicted individuals
may also be subject to probation or parole, which
includes additional conditions and supervision
following release from prison.
- **Restitution**: In addition to imprisonment and
fines, offende
● To: Tracye K Pina
From: Sean J. Reynolds, Esq.
Re: United States v. Canter; armed bank
robbery with a dangerous weapon

We have been appointed to represent Eldon Canter

in the case of United States v. Canter. Canter is
charged with one count of armed bank robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d).
On January 5 of this year, Mr. Canter robbed the
First State Bank. After he entered the bank, he
approached a teller and pulled from his pocket a
crudely carved wooden replica of a 9 mm Beretta
handgun. He had carved the replica from a block of
pinewood and stained it with a dark walnut wood
stain to make it look black. He drilled a hole in the
barrel end in an attempt to make it look like a real
Beretta.
The teller was so frightened that he only glanced at
the wooden gun. He believed it was real. The teller
at the next window looked at the replica and
afterward stated that she was fairly certain at the
time that it was fake. No one else noticed whether
the wooden replica was real.
Please determine whether, in light of the facts of this
case, there is sufficient evidence to support the
charge that Mr. Canter committed bank robbery by
use of a “dangerous weapon.”
Statutory Law: 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d), Bank
robbery and incidental crimes, provides:
Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation,
takes, or attempts to take, from the person or
presence of another … any property or money or any
other thing of value belonging to, or in the care,
custody, control, management, or possession of, a
bank….
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not
more than 20 years, or both.
Whoever, in committing, or in attempting to commit,
any offense defined in subsections (a) and (b) of this
section, assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the
life of any person by use of a dangerous weapon or
device, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than 25 years, or both.
Case Law: United States v. Martinez-Jimenez, 864
F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1989) (d) if it is used in a manner
that puts victims in fear for their safety.
**Statutory Definition**: According to 18 U.S.C. §
2113(d), a "dangerous weapon" is implied in the
context of bank robbery to be an object used to put
in jeopardy the life of any person by force, violence,
or intimidation.
**Case Law Precedent**: The case of United States
v. Martinez-Jimenez established that a toy gun can
be considered a "dangerous weapon" under 18
U.S.C. § 2113(d) if it is used in a manner that puts
victims in fear for their safety.
**Perception of Danger**: The perception of the
weapon by the victims plays a crucial role in
determining its dangerousness. If the object, despite
being non-functional or a replica, causes fear or
intimidation, it may fulfill the statutory definition of a
dangerous weapon.
**Legal Analysis**: In light of the case law and
statutory definition, the wooden replica wielded by
Mr. Canter could be considered a "dangerous
weapon" if it was used in a way that caused the bank
teller to believe it was real and to feel intimidated or
in danger.

- **Evidence Consideration**: The belief of the teller

that the wooden gun was real, and the subsequent
fear experienced could be sufficient evidence to
support the charge of armed bank robbery with a
dangerous weapon.

- **Defense Strategy**: The defense could argue that

the wooden replica does not meet the criteria of a
dangerous weapon if it can be proven that Mr.
Canter did not intend to intimidate or that the teller's
belief was not reasonable.

- **Jury's Role**: Ultimately, it would be up to a jury

to decide whether the wooden replica in Mr. Canter's
case induced a sufficient level of fear to be
considered a "dangerous weapon" under the law.

- **Legal Outcome**: The determination of whether

Mr. Canter's wooden replica constitutes a
 5

"dangerous weapon" will significantly impact the

potential penalties, including the length of
imprisonment if convicted.
What is the penalty for robbery without the use of a
dangerous weapon?
**Penalty for Bank Robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)) **:
The penalty for bank robbery without the use of a
dangerous weapon, as defined under
18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), can result in imprisonment for
up to 20 years and/or a fine.
- **Lesser Offenses**: If the amount taken does not
exceed $1,000, the offense is considered a lesser
offense and can result in imprisonment for up to one
year and/or a fine.

- **Aggravating Factors**: The presence of

aggravating factors, such as the use of a dangerous
weapon, can increase the maximum penalty to 25
years of imprisonment.

- **Fine Amounts**: The fine for bank robbery without

a dangerous weapon can be substantial, up to
$250,000, depending on the specifics of the case.

- **Federal Jurisdiction**: Bank robbery is a federal

crime, and thus, the penalties are governed by
federal law, regardless of the state in which the crime
occurred.

- **Probation and Parole**: Convicted individuals

may also be subject to probation or parole, which
includes additional conditions and supervision
following release from prison.
- **Restitution**: In addition to imprisonment, fines,
and offender.
- **Legal Outcome**: The determination of whether
Mr. Canter's wooden replica constitutes a
"dangerous weapon" will significantly impact the
potential penalties, including the length of
imprisonment if convicted.
What is the penalty for robbery without the use of a
dangerous weapon?
**Penalty for Bank Robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a))
**: The penalty for bank robbery without the use of a
dangerous weapon, as defined under
18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), can result in imprisonment for
up to 20 years and/or a fine.
- **Lesser Offenses**: If the amount taken does not
exceed $1,000, the offense is considered a lesser
offense and can result in imprisonment for up to one
year and/or a fine.
- **Aggravating Factors**: The presence of
aggravating factors, such as the use of a dangerous
weapon, can increase the maximum penalty to 25
years of imprisonment.
- **Fine Amounts**: The fine for bank robbery
without a dangerous weapon can be substantial, up
to $250,000, depending on the specifics of the case.
- **Federal Jurisdiction**: Bank robbery is a federal
crime, and thus, the penalties are governed by
federal law, regardless of the state in which the crime
occurred.
- **Probation and Parole**: Convicted individuals
may also be subject to probation or parole, which
includes additional conditions and supervision
following release from prison.
- **Restitution**: In addition to imprisonment and
fines, offenders may be ordered to pay "restitution"
to the victims or the bank for any losses incurred
because of the robbery.
- **Sentencing Guidelines**: Federal sentencing
guidelines, which consider the defendant's criminal
history and the characteristics of the offense, will
influence the actual sentence given.
- **Plea Bargaining**: In some cases, plea
bargaining may result in reduced charges or
penalties, especially if the defendant cooperates with
law enforcement or provides substantial assistance
in other investigations.
**Robbery**: Involves taking something of value
directly from another person by force or fear. It is a
crime against a person and typically involves theft,
force, or intimidation.

- **Force or Fear**: Robbery necessarily involves

the use of force or the threat of force, while burglary
does not require force; simply entering without
permission with criminal intent suffices.
- **Location**: Burglary involves entering a
structure, whereas robbery involves taking
something directly from a person.
- **Theft**: While both crimes may involve theft,
robbery always does, as it involves taking property
from a person. Burglary may not involve theft if the
intended crime inside the building is not theft.
- **Intent**: Burglary requires the intent to commit a
crime inside the building at the time of entry,
regardless of whether the crime is completed.
- **Penalties**: The penalties for robbery and
burglary can vary, with robbery often carrying
harsher penalties due to the element of force or fear
against a person.
**Burglary**: Entails illegally entering a building with
the intent to commit a crime inside, which does not
 7

necessarily have to be theft. It is considered a

property crime.
**Robbery**: Involves the taking of property from
another person by force, intimidation, or threat of
force. It is a direct crime against a person and is
considered a more serious offense due to the
element of force.
- **Force or Threat**: The key difference lies in the
use of force or threat; robbery requires this element,
while larceny does not.
● -**Direct Interaction**: Robbery usually
involves a direct interaction with the victim,
whereas larceny can occur without the
victim being present or aware at the time
of the crime.

- **Legal Definitions**: The legal

definitions of robbery and larceny may
vary slightly by jurisdiction, but the
distinction between the two is consistent in
terms of the presence or absence of force
or intimidation.
Due to the violent nature of robbery, it often carries
harsher legal penalties than larceny, which is
categorized as a misdemeanor unless the value of
the stolen property qualifies it as grand larceny.
- **Severity of Penalties**: is a cornerstone in the
legal system, serving as a deterrent to prevent
individuals from committing crimes. (However,
the effectiveness of this approach has been a
subject of debate among scholars and
policymakers.)
**Larceny**: Refers to the unlawful taking and
carrying away of someone's property without their
consent and without the use of force or threat. It is
typically treated as a lesser offense compared to
robbery.
In the case of United States v. Canter, the charge of
armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and
(d) hinges on whether the wooden replica of a
firearm presented by Mr. Canter constitutes a
"dangerous weapon." The statute delineates that an
individual is culpable if they intimidate or assault any
person or jeopardize the life of any person using a
dangerous weapon or device during the commission
of a bank robbery. The definition of a dangerous
weapon is pivotal in this context.
"Case law", has interpreted a dangerous weapon to
include any object that, based on the manner of its
use or intended use, can cause death or serious
bodily injury. The perception of the weapon by the
victim can also be a critical factor. In United States v.
Martinez, the case of United States v.
Martinez-Jimenez, 864 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1989), the
court was presented with the question of whether a
toy gun constitutes a "dangerous weapon" under the
federal bank robbery statute, specifically 18 U.S.C. §
2113(d). The defendant, Gilbert Martinez-Jimenez,
appealed his conviction following a bench trial on
one count of armed bank robbery, contending that
the trial court erred in its conclusion that the toy gun
he wielded during the robbery was a "dangerous
weapon." The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the district court's judgment, holding that a toy gun
can be considered a dangerous weapon within the
statute's meaning. The court reasoned that the use
of a toy gun during a robbery creates similar risks to
those created by an unloaded or inoperable genuine
gun, such as causing victims greater apprehension,
necessitating a more deliberate response from law
enforcement, and increasing the likelihood of an
armed response from police or guards, which in turn
raises the risk to the physical security of victims,
bystanders, and the perpetrators themselves. This
decision aligns with the court's rationale in previous
cases, such as McLaughlin, where a toy gun was
also deemed a "dangerous weapon" under the same
statute. The case highlights the legal principle that
the perception of danger can be as impactful as
actual danger, particularly in the context of criminal
law and the protection of public safety.
In Mr. Canter's situation, the wooden replica,
although not a functional firearm, was crafted and
presented in a manner that caused at least one teller
to believe it was a real handgun, which resulted in
intimidation. This factor could potentially satisfy the
element of the statute requiring the use of a
dangerous weapon. However, the determination of
whether the wooden replica is a dangerous weapon
may also consider the intent of Mr. Canter and the
overall circumstances of the robbery. The fact that
another teller suspected the gun was fake and that
no one else noticed the replica could be significant in
assessing the level of intimidation and perceived
danger.
The court may also examine the physical
characteristics of the replica and the context in which
it was displayed. If the replica was brandished in a
manner that a reasonable person could believe it to
be a real firearm, this could further support the
charge. Conversely, if the evidence suggests that the
replica was unlikely to be perceived as a real
weapon, this could undermine the charge.
The subjective belief of the teller who thought the
gun was real, along with the objective appearance of
the replica, will be central to the court's evaluation.
 9

The question of sufficiency of evidence for the

charge against Mr. Canter will rest on a detailed
analysis of the facts surrounding the incident, the
characteristics of the wooden replica, and the
reactions of the bank employees. The prosecution
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
wooden replica was used in a manner that qualifies
as a dangerous weapon under the statute. This will
involve careful consideration of both objective and
subjective elements, as well as relevant precedents
that interpret the statutory language and define the
contours of what constitutes a dangerous weapon in
the context of a bank robbery. The defense may
argue that the replica did not constitute a dangerous
weapon due to its inability to cause actual harm,
while the prosecution will focus on the perceived
threat and the intimidation experienced by the
victims. The court's interpretation of these factors will
be crucial in determining the outcome of the charge
against Mr. Canter.
The penalty for bank robbery in the United States, as
defined under 18 U.S.C. § 2113, varies depending on
the specifics of the crime committed. Under
subsection (a), if the robbery involves force,
violence, or intimidation, the perpetrator can be fined
or face imprisonment for up to twenty years. If the
robbery includes an assault or puts someone's life in
jeopardy using a dangerous weapon or device, the
imprisonment can extend up to twenty-five years
under subsection (d). For lesser offenses, such as
taking and carrying away property or money not
exceeding $1,000, the penalty can be a fine or
imprisonment for not more than one year. It is
important to note that these penalties can be
compounded by additional charges related to
robbery, such as use of a weapon, resulting in
potentially longer sentences and larger fines. The
"federal" nature of these crimes means that the
penalties are severe and reflect the seriousness with
which bank robbery is treated in the "United States
legal system".

The case of United States v. Martinez-Jimenez,

while specifically addressing the use of a toy gun in a
bank robbery, has broader implications for cases
involving real guns due to the legal interpretation of
what constitutes a "dangerous weapon" under 18
U.S.C. § 2113(d). In instances where real guns are
used, the statute's application is straightforward, as
real guns are inherently dangerous weapons.
However, the Martinez-Jimenez decision is pivotal
because it expands the definition to include items
that are not inherently dangerous but become so
through their use in a manner that instills fear and
can provoke violence.
This interpretation aligns with the statute's intent to
protect individuals from threats to their safety during
the commission of a robbery, regardless of whether
the weapon is real or simulated.
Consequently, the precedent set by
Martinez-Jimenez influences how courts view the
severity of using real guns in robberies, potentially
leading to harsher sentences due to the clear and
present danger they represent. The case
underscores the principle that the perception of
danger can be as significant as actual danger,
thereby affecting the legal outcomes of cases
involving real firearms where the threat to life and
safety is indisputable.
The distinction between a toy gun and a real gun is
primarily based on their construction, purpose, and
legal implications. Real guns are designed to fire live
ammunition and are constructed from materials that
can withstand the pressures associated with firing
bullets. They are typically made of metal and have
mechanisms for firing, reloading, and safety. Toy
guns, on the other hand, are often made of plastic or
other non-metallic materials and are designed to
replicate the appearance of real firearms without the
capability to discharge live ammunition. Legally, toy
guns are required to have distinct markings, such as
an orange tip, to differentiate them from real
firearms, although these can sometimes be altered
or removed, which can lead to dangerous situations.
In the context of legal scrutiny, as seen in cases like
United States v. Martinez-Jimenez, the differentiation
between a "toy gun" and a "real gun" becomes
crucial. The court's interpretation of a "dangerous
weapon" under the federal bank robbery statute
extends to items that, while not inherently
dangerous, are used in a manner that instills fear
and can provoke violence. This means that a toy
gun, when used in a robbery, can be treated with the
same severity as a real gun because of the
perceived threat it represents.
Furthermore, the difficulty in distinguishing between
toys and real guns, especially in high-stress
situations, has led to tragic outcomes and has been
a point of debate and legislative action. Some states
have passed laws requiring toy guns to be brightly
colored or have prominent fluorescent strips to
prevent such confusion. However, the effectiveness
of these measures is debated, as modifications to
both real and toy guns can blur the lines of
distinction.
 11

In terms of safety, the resemblance of toy guns to

real firearms poses significant risks, particularly to
children who may not grasp the gravity of the
situation when handling such toys. Studies have
shown that most children cannot reliably distinguish
between real and toy guns, which underscores the
importance of responsible storage and handling of all
firearms, whether real or imitation, to prevent
accidents and misunderstandings.
Considering recent events and the ongoing public
discourse on gun violence, there is a push for stricter
gun laws.
Public opinion is divided, with some advocating for
more stringent regulations to enhance safety, while
others emphasize the importance of the
constitutional right to bear arms. The legal
implications of gun ownership are thus not static;
they evolve with shifting societal norms, legal
interpretations, and legislative changes.
It is crucial for gun owners to be aware of the laws
applicable in their jurisdiction and to understand the
potential liabilities associated with gun ownership.
Failure to comply with legal requirements can lead to
serious consequences, not only for the individual
owner but also for the broader community. As such,
responsible gun ownership involves a commitment to
understanding and adhering to the laws designed to
prevent gun violence and ensure the safety of all
citizens.

The federal bank robbery statute, codified at 18

U.S.C. § 2113, outlines various offenses related to
bank robbery and associated crimes. Specifically,
subsection (d) of this statute increases the penalties
for bank robbery when anyone's life is put in
jeopardy by a dangerous weapon or device. The
case of United States v. Martinez-Jimenez, 864 F.2d
664 (9th Cir. 1989), is a pivotal case that addressed
the definition of a "dangerous weapon" in the context
of bank robbery. In this case, the defendant, Gilbert
Martinez-Jimenez, was convicted of armed bank
robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), even
though the "weapon" used was a toy gun. The court
found that the use of a toy gun during the robbery
put lives in jeopardy because it instilled fear in the
victims, which is congruent with the legislative intent
of the statute to deter actions that threaten physical
safety during a robbery.
This case has been influential in subsequent cases
involving toy guns, as it established that a toy gun
can be considered a "dangerous weapon" if it is used
in a manner that endangers life or instills fear. For
instance, in U.S. v. Simmons, the reasoning from
Martinez-Jimenez was followed, affirming that a toy
gun fell within the meaning of a "dangerous weapon"
under the federal bank robbery statute. The rationale
is that the use of a toy gun in a robbery creates
similar risks to using an unloaded or inoperable
genuine gun, such as causing victims to experience
greater apprehension, necessitating a more
deliberate response from law enforcement, and
increasing the likelihood of an armed response,
which in turn raises the risk to physical security of all
involved.
The Martinez-Jimenez decision underscores the
seriousness with which the federal legal system
treats bank robberies, regardless of whether the
weapon used is real or fake. It reflects a broader
legal principle that the potential harm and the
perceived threat during the commission of a crime
can be just as significant as actual harm. This
principle is applied consistently across various
jurisdictions, ensuring that the punitive measures for
bank robbery remain stringent to deter such crimes
effectively.
The case serves as a precedent that has shaped the
legal landscape regarding the use of toy guns in the
commission of crimes, particularly in the context of
bank robberies, where the distinction between real
and fake weapons may not matter in terms of
sentencing and conviction.
In summary, while toy guns are intended for play and
imitation, their realistic design can lead to them being
perceived as real, with serious legal and safety
consequences.
The differentiation between the two is critical, not
only for legal definitions and the application of
statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 2113 but also for public
safety and the prevention of potentially fatal
misunderstandings. The ongoing debate and
legislative efforts aim to address these concerns by
enhancing the visual differences between toy and
real guns, thereby aiding in their identification, and
reducing the risks associated with their confusion.
Toy gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_gun

The federal bank robbery statute, codified at 18

U.S.C. § 2113, outlines various offenses related
to bank robbery and associated crimes.
Specifically, subsection (d) of this statute
increases the penalties for bank robbery when
the life of any person is put in jeopardy by the
use of a dangerous weapon or device. The case
of United States v. §§§§§¶§§¶Martinez-Jimenez,
 13

864 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1989), is a pivotal case that

addressed the definition of a "dangerous
weapon" in the context of bank robbery. In this
case, the defendant, Gilbert Martinez-Jimenez,
was convicted of armed bank robbery under 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), despite the fact that the
"weapon" used was a toy gun. The court found
that the use of a toy gun during the robbery put
lives in jeopardy because it instilled fear in the
victims, which is congruent with the legislative
intent of the statute to deter actions that threaten
physical safety during a robbery.
This case has been influential in subsequent
cases involving toy guns, as it established that a
toy gun can be considered a "dangerous
weapon" if it is used in a manner that endangers
life or instills fear. For instance, in U.S. v.
Simmons, the reasoning from Martinez-Jimenez
was followed, affirming that a toy gun fell within
the meaning of a "dangerous weapon" under the
federal bank robbery statute. The rationale is that
the use of a toy gun in a robbery creates similar
risks to using an unloaded or inoperable genuine
gun, such as causing victims to experience
greater apprehension, necessitating a more
deliberate response from law enforcement, and
increasing the likelihood of an armed response,
which in turn raises the risk to physical security
of all involved.
The Martinez-Jimenez decision underscores the
seriousness with which the federal legal system
treats bank robberies, regardless of whether the
weapon used is real or fake. It reflects a broader
legal principle that the potential harm and the
perceived threat during the commission of a
crime can be just as significant as actual harm.
This principle is applied consistently across
various jurisdictions, ensuring that the punitive
measures for bank robbery remain stringent to
deter such crimes effectively. The case serves as
a precedent that has shaped the legal landscape
regarding the use of toy guns in the commission
of crimes, particularly in the context of bank
robberies, where the distinction between real and
fake weapons may not matter in terms of
sentencing and conviction.
In summary, while toy guns are intended for play
and imitation, their realistic design can lead to
them being perceived as real, with serious legal
and safety consequences. The differentiation
between the two is critical, not only for legal
definitions and the application of statutes like 18
U.S.C. § 2113 but also for public safety and the
prevention of potentially fatal
misunderstandings. The ongoing debate and
legislative efforts aim to address these concerns
by enhancing the visual differences between toy
and real guns, thereby aiding in their
identification and reducing the risks associated
with their confusion.
● Case Overview: Eldon Canter is
charged with armed bank robbery
under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), using
a wooden replica of a gun.
● Legal Definitions: A “dangerous
weapon” is defined as an object that
puts someone’s life in jeopardy by
force, violence, or intimidation.
● Case Law Precedent: United States v.
Martinez-Jimenez established that a toy
gun can be considered a “dangerous
weapon” if it causes fear for safety.
● Penalties: Bank robbery without a
dangerous weapon can result in up to
20 years imprisonment; with a
dangerous weapon, up to 25 years.
The page also discusses the implications of the
perception of danger and the role of the jury in
determining whether the wooden replica qualifies
as a “dangerous weapon.”
what are some key factors that determine the
penalties under 18 U.S. Code § 2113 for bank
robbery offenses?
Under 18 U.S. Code § 2113 for bank robbery
offenses, some key factors that determine the
penalties include:
● Amount Involved: The punishment may
vary based on the amount stolen. For
example, there are distinctions in
penalties for thefts under $100
compared to higher amounts stolen[5].
● Use of Force or Violence: Penalties may
be more severe if force, violence, or
threats were involved in the
commission of the bank robbery or
related offense.
● Type of Crime: The severity of the
offense, such as robbery, theft, or other
criminal acts against financial
institutions, can influence the penalties
imposed.
● Type of Financial Institution: The law
applies to banks, credit unions, and
savings and loan associations. The
penalties may be influenced by the
specific type of institution targeted.
 15

● Historical Context and Amendments:

Previous legislative changes and
amendments made to the law over time
could also impact the penalties under
18 U.S. Code § 2113.
These factors are crucial in determining the
appropriate punishment for individuals involved
in bank robbery and related crimes as outlined in
the statute.
Under California law, a "deadly weapon" is an
instrument either designed to be lethal, or a
dangerous implement that can be used lethally.
A "dangerous weapon," on the other hand, is not
necessarily always deadly.
The unloaded pistol, although not "deadly," is
"dangerous," because it can still be used as a
bludgeon.
The legislature has also focused on the reporting
of weapons offenses since health practitioners
are required by law to report to law enforcement,
both orally and in writing, any patient who has
suffered a wound from a knife, firearm, or other
deadly weapon.
This article explains California Penal Code
Section 245, which pertains to assault with a
deadly weapon; Section 417, which outlaws the
brandishing or use of any deadly weapon other
than a firearm; and Section 12020, which
proscribes the possession of weapons designed
to be used primarily for destructive or harmful
purposes.

Chapter 2: Possession of Firearm, Ammunition,

Destructive Device, or Dangerous Weapon
(Probation and Supervised Release Conditions)
1. Statutory Authority
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(8), the court may
provide that the defendant “refrain from
possessing a firearm, destructive device, or
other dangerous weapon.”
1. Standard Condition Language
You must not own, possess, or have access to a
firearm, ammunition, destructive device, or
dangerous weapon (i.e., anything that was
designed or was modified for the specific
purpose of causing bodily injury or death to
another person, such as nunchakus or tasers.
Purpose
● This condition serves the statutory
sentencing purpose of public
protection. 18 U.S.
● The federal bank robbery statute,
codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2113, outlines
various offenses related to bank
robbery and associated crimes.
Specifically, subsection (d) of this
statute increases the penalties for bank
robbery when the life of any person is
put in jeopardy by the use of a
dangerous weapon or device. The case
of United States v.
§§§§§¶§§¶Martinez-Jimenez, 864 F.2d
664 (9th Cir. 1989), is a pivotal case that
addressed the definition of a
"dangerous weapon" in the context of
bank robbery. In this case, the
defendant, Gilbert Martinez-Jimenez,
was convicted of armed bank robbery
under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d),
despite the fact that the "weapon" used
was a toy gun. The court found that the
use of a toy gun during the robbery put
lives in jeopardy because it instilled
fear in the victims, which is congruent
with the legislative intent of the statute
to deter actions that threaten physical
safety during a robbery.
This case has been influential in
subsequent cases involving toy guns,
as it established that a toy gun can be
considered a "dangerous weapon" if it
is used in a manner that endangers life
or instills fear. For instance, in U.S. v.
Simmons, the reasoning from
Martinez-Jimenez was followed,
affirming that a toy gun fell within the
meaning of a "dangerous weapon"
under the federal bank robbery statute.
The rationale is that the use of a toy
gun in a robbery creates similar risks to
using an unloaded or inoperable
genuine gun, such as causing victims
to experience greater apprehension,
necessitating a more deliberate
response from law enforcement, and
increasing the likelihood of an armed
response, which in turn raises the risk
to physical security of all involved.
The Martinez-Jimenez decision
underscores the seriousness with
which the federal legal system treats
bank robberies, regardless of whether
the weapon used is real or fake. It
reflects a broader legal principle that
 17

the potential harm and the perceived

threat during the commission of a
crime can be just as significant as
actual harm. This principle is applied
consistently across various
jurisdictions, ensuring that the punitive
measures for bank robbery remain
stringent to deter such crimes
effectively. The case serves as a
precedent that has shaped the legal
landscape regarding the use of toy
guns in the commission of crimes,
particularly in the context of bank
robberies, where the distinction
between real and fake weapons may
not matter in terms of sentencing and
conviction.
In summary, while toy guns are
intended for play and imitation, their
realistic design can lead to them being
perceived as real, with serious legal
and safety consequences. The
differentiation between the two is
critical, not only for legal definitions
and the application of statutes like 18
U.S.C. § 2113 but also for public safety
and the prevention of potentially fatal
misunderstandings. The ongoing
debate and legislative efforts aim to
address these concerns by enhancing
the visual differences between toy and
real guns, thereby aiding in their
identification and reducing the risks
associated with their confusion.
○ Case Overview: Eldon Canter
is charged with armed bank
robbery under 18 U.S.C. §
2113(a) and (d), using a
wooden replica of a gun.
○ Legal Definitions: A
“dangerous weapon” is
defined as an object that puts
someone’s life in jeopardy by
force, violence, or
intimidation.
○ Case Law Precedent: United
States v. Martinez-Jimenez
established that a toy gun can
be considered a “dangerous
weapon” if it causes fear for
safety.
○ Penalties: Bank robbery
without a dangerous weapon
can result in up to 20 years
imprisonment; with a
 dangerous weapon, up to 25
years.
●