IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-60481
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LORENZO FAIRFAX,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi
3:94-CR-126
May 7, 1996
Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.*
PER CURIAM:
After considering the briefs and record, the Court concludes
that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. The
jury could find that an ordinary person in the teller’s position
reasonably could infer a threat of bodily harm from the defendant.
United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 315 (5th Cir. 1987), cert.
denied, 484 U.S. 1075 (1988). Nor will we disturb the district
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
court’s denial of a reduction in offense level for acceptance of
responsibility. The district court’s denial was not based on an
erroneous view of the law, but rather its evaluation of the
particular context of this case. In Higdon, we stated that
“[e]vidence that [the defendant’s] acts did induce fear in an
individual victim is probative of whether his acts were objectively
intimidating.” Id. The district court could properly conclude
that defendant at least implicitly contested whether the teller was
in fact intimidated. The district court did not abuse its broad
discretion in determining that the defendant did not merely
challenge the applicability of the statute to undisputed facts.
United States v. Broussard, 987 F.2d 215, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993),
is hence not controlling here.
AFFIRMED
2