Armed Robbery / Bank Robbery
SEE ALSO: HOBBS ACT
Whitfield v. United States, (2015)
In order to trigger the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e), substantial movement of the robbery victim is not necessary. Even requiring a victim to move within the bank is sufficient to invoke the mandatory minimum.
United States v. Carr, 761 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2014)
The defendant participated in a meeting with other conspirators during which they discussed robbing a credit union. There was no discussion of using guns and no guns were displayed or visible at the meeting. This defendant did not go into the credit union and was not the getaway driver, though he was parked nearby. The district court found that there was sufficient evidence that the defendant was a member of the conspiracy to rob the credit union, but the evidence was insufficient to prove that he knew that guns would be used, even under the Pinkerton doctrine. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
United States v. Franco-Samtiago, 681 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012)
The defendant was charged with being a member of a conspiracy that participated in five armed robberies. Only the last robbery occurred within five years of the return of the indictment. The government agreed that the defendant had no involvement in the first three robberies. The evidence was sufficient to demonstrate his participation in the fourth. After he was convicted of the conspiracy count, the government conceded at sentencing that he was not involved in the fifth robbery. The First Circuit concluded that the defendant only agreed to participate in one conspiracy and that he could not be held responsible for participating in the overarching conspiracy that involved several other defendants and the other four robberies. Though he agreed to join the conspiracy, the conspiracy that he agreed to join only involved the one robbery that occurred outside the statute of limitations.
United States v. Thornton, 539 F.3d 741 (7th Cir. 2008)
In order to be convicted of attempted bank robbery under the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), the government must show actual force and violence or intimidation. This is true even in an attempt case.
Brown v. Palmer, 441 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2006)
The defendant was the driver of a car from which two occupants suddenly jumped out and carjacked another car. He jumped out of his car and ran away. The evidence did not establish that the driver was a participant in the crime.
United States v. Sandles, 469 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2006)
In this bank robbery trial, the government failed to adequately prove that the bank was FDIC insured, an essential element of a bank robbery, or bank fraud offense.
United States v. Burton, 425 F.3d 1008 (5th Cir. 2005)
The defendant forced the victim to withdraw money from an ATM and took the money from her. This does not amount to bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). The money was taken from the victim, not the bank.
United States v. Santos, 449 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2006)
The defendants tried to rob an undercover drug agent by flashing fake DEA badges. The use of the fake badge did not amount to “force” in support of a Hobbs Act robbery charge. With regard to one alleged co-conspirator, moreover, the evidence was insufficient to prove that that the defendant was a knowing participant in the conspiracy to rob the victim. Mere presence and association with the other conspirators was all that was established.
United States v. Ballew, 369 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 2004)
The defendant was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) with “by force, violence an intimidation, intentionally attempt to take from the person and presence of another, money [of a bank].” The evidence established that he did enter the bank with the intention of robbing it (and arguably did attempt to rob the bank), but he never used any force or intimidation. He simply was waiting on a couch in anticipation of meeting with a manager, then left and later was stopped by the police when he returned the bank. He never actually used any force or intimidation. This does not qualify as “using force or intimidation in an attempt to rob a bank.” Attempted intimidation does not suffice.