Background
Defendant Monte Straite was convicted of armed bank robbery and attempted armed bank robbery under Section 2113(a) and (d), as well as brandishing firearms under Section 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). He appealed the conviction, specifically challenging whether the attempted armed bank robbery conviction qualified as a crime of violence to support the Section 924(c) enhancement.
The court’s reasoning
The court analyzed whether attempted armed bank robbery under Section 2113(d) meets the elements clause of Section 924(c)(3), which requires the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. The court reasoned that Section 2113(d) explicitly requires that a defendant assaults any person or puts the life of any person in jeopardy by the use of a dangerous weapon or device during the commission or attempted commission of the offense. Because both assault and putting a life in jeopardy by use of a dangerous weapon inherently involve the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force, the offense categorically qualifies as a crime of violence. The court rejected the argument that the statute is too broad because it applies to any person, noting that one cannot assault oneself under a classic understanding of assault.
What it means going forward
This decision confirms that convictions for attempted armed bank robbery under Section 2113(d) will support enhanced penalties under Section 924(c) as crimes of violence.