The Court declined to reach the merits of Collier’s challenge to the Guidelines enhancements, finding them untimely under § 2255’s one-year time limit.BackgroundIn October 1997, a federal jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York convicted Collier of attempted federal bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§2113, as well as several related counts. The jury also found Collier guilty of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1), which prohibits using or carrying a firearm during the commission of a “crime of violence.”

SEE ALSO: HOBBS ACTWhitfield 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.

Whitfield v. United States, USSC No. 13-9026, 2015 WL 144680 (January 13, 2015), affirmingUnited States v. Whitfield, 695 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2012); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary)The Supreme Court unanimously holds that a bank robber forces a person to “accompany” him for purposes of the enhanced penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e) when he forces that person to go somewhere with him, even if the movement occurs entirely within a single building or over a short distance.Whitfield was fleeing from a botched bank robbery when he entered Mary Parnell’s home. He encountered Parnell and guided her from the hallway into another room, a distance of between four to nine feet.

United States v. McCranie, 2018 WL 205009 (10th Cir. May 3, 2018) (Colo.) Mr. McCranie’s conviction for federal bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) qualified as a “crime of violence” under the career offender sentencing guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1). The guideline states:, “[t]he term ‘crime of violence’ means any offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that . . . has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another . . . .”

Question presented:Whether 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e), which provides a minimum sentence of ten years in prison and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for a bank robber who forces another person “to accompany him” during the robbery or while in flight, requires proof of more than a de minimis movement of the victim.Lower court opinion: United States v. Whitfield, 695 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2012)DocketScotusblog pageThis case will be of interest to federal practitioners, as the Court will resolve some disagreement among federal circuits about whether there is some distance and duration that is too short to satisfy the forced accompaniment requirement of § 2113(e).

Questions Presented: 1. Whether Bank Larceny, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2113(b), is a lesser included offense of Bank Robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2113(a), as a matter of law, pursuant to the textual "elements" test adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 109 S.Ct. 1443 (1989). 2.

US v. Ybarra, 2018 WL 1750547 (10th Cir. April 12, 2018) (unpublished): The Tenth Circuit holds that federal bank robbery by force and violence, or by intimidation (18 USC 2113(a)) is a violent felony. First, it has an element of use of force because it can be committed by intimidation.

United States v. Wolfe, 701 F.3d 1206 (7th Cir. 2012). The defendant was convicted on one count of bank theft and one count of interstate transportation of stolen goods under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(b) and 2314 for his role in a copper theft scheme. On appeal, he challenged his conviction based upon the prosecutor’s statements during closing argument, his sentence, and the court’s order of restitution.

United States v. Wolfe, 701 F.3d 1206 (7th Cir. 2012). The defendant was convicted on one count of bank theft and one count of interstate transportation of stolen goods under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(b) and 2314 for his role in a copper theft scheme. On appeal, he challenged his conviction based upon the prosecutor’s statements during closing argument, his sentence, and the court’s order of restitution.

The defendant was not guilty of attempted sale of cocaine, because he knew the substance he was selling was not a controlled substance and therefore he did not "attempt" to commit that crime. 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.