U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2007

United States v. O'Neil

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided August 20, 2007

249 F. App'x 497

Counsel

Andrew G. Schopler, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Holly Sullivan, Esq., Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. James Wooten (6th Cir. 2012)
United States v. James Wooten (6th Cir. 2012)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Timothy Eugene O’Neil appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed for two counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not clearly err in imposing a two-level enhancement for threat of death pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F). O’Neil’s written statement, “I have a gun,” was sufficient to instill a fear of death in a reasonable victim and there were no unusual circum*498stances to mitigate the phrase. See United States v. Jennings, 439 F.3d 604, 611 (9th Cir. 2006).

In regards to O’Neil’s challenges to the reasonableness of his sentence, we conclude that the district court applied the appropriate legal standard and properly considered the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Given the record, we cannot say that O’Neil’s sentence was unreasonable. See United States v. Knows His Gun, 438 F.3d 913, 918 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 2913, 165 L.Ed.2d 931 (2006).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.