9th Cir.

USA v. Brown

June 23, 2026 ·9:24-cr-00049-DLC-1 ·Unpublished · By James Taylor

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea by a felon in possession of a firearm. The court also upheld the classification of the defendant's prior bank robbery conviction as a crime of violence for sentencing purposes.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:02

Background

Mallory Brown pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Section one eight U.S.C. Section nine hundred twenty two subsection g one. He appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and its determination that his prior bank robbery conviction was a crime of violence under United States Sentencing Guideline Section two K two point one subsection a four.

The court’s reasoning

The court reviewed the denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea for abuse of discretion and the crime of violence classification de novo. The court found Brown failed to show he could not have foreseen the new evidence, as he himself made the phone calls resulting in recordings where he sought to surrender firearms. The court noted Brown admitted the evidence cut both ways and had the burden to show a fair and just reason for withdrawal. Regarding the sentencing classification, the court held that United States v. Watson forecloses Brown’s argument that the statute is indivisible, confirming bank robbery is a crime of violence.

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces the high bar for withdrawing guilty pleas based on new evidence and confirms the categorical classification of bank robbery as a crime of violence in the Ninth Circuit.