881 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 2018), 16-15357, United States v. Watson

Docket Nº:16-15357
Citation:881 F.3d 782
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus Kalani WATSON, AKA Kiki Seui; Rogussia Eddie Allen Danielson, Defendants-Appellants.
Attorney:Peter C. Wolff Jr. (argued), Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Honolulu, Hawaii; Alvin Nishimura, Kaneohe, Hawaii; for Defendants-Appellants. John P. Taddei (argued), Attorney, Appellate Section; Sung-Hee Suh, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Leslie R. Caldwell, As...
Judge Panel:Before: J. Clifford Wallace and Paul J. Watford, Circuit Judges, and W. Louis Sands, District Judge.
Case Date:February 01, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
SUMMARY

The Ninth Circuit denied defendants' 28 U.S.C. 2255 motions challenging the validity of their convictions for carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. The panel held that bank robbery "by force and violence, or by intimidation" is a crime of violence under the force clause of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). The panel reasoned that, because defendants' predicate offense, armed bank robbery, could not be... (see full summary)

 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 782

881 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 2018)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Marcus Kalani WATSON, AKA Kiki Seui; Rogussia Eddie Allen Danielson, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 16-15357

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

February 1, 2018

Argued and Submitted September 13, 2017, San Francisco, California

Page 783

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. Nos. 1:15-cv-00313-DKW-KSC, 1:15-cv-00390-DKW-BMK, 1:14-cr-00751-DKW

SUMMARY[**]

28 U.S.C. § 2255

The panel affirmed the district court's denial of two defendants' motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging the validity of their convictions for carrying a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).

The defendants argued that their convictions are unlawful because the predicate offense-armed bank robbery-no longer qualifies as a crime of violence.

The panel held that bank robbery "by force and violence, or by intimidation, " 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), is a crime of violence under the force clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and that because armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) cannot be based on conduct that involves less force than unarmed bank robbery requires, armed bank robbery under § 2113(a) and (d) qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c) as well.

Peter C. Wolff Jr. (argued), Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Honolulu, Hawaii; Alvin Nishimura, Kaneohe, Hawaii; for Defendants-Appellants.

John P. Taddei (argued), Attorney, Appellate Section; Sung-Hee Suh, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Leslie R. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General; Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Thomas J. Brady, Assistant United States Attorney; United States Attorney’s Office, Honolulu, Hawaii; for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mia Crager, Assistant Federal Defender; Heather E. Williams, Federal Defender; Office of the Federal Public Defender, Sacramento, California; David M. Porter, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, D.C.; for Amici Curiae Ninth Circuit Federal Public and Community Defenders and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Before: J. Clifford Wallace and Paul J. Watford, Circuit Judges, and W. Louis Sands,[*] District Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM

We must decide whether armed bank robbery under federal law is a crime of

Page 784

violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We hold that it is.

The government charged Marcus Watson and Rogussia Danielson with armed bank robbery committed " by force, violence, and by intimidation," in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), after they robbed an American Savings Bank while armed with handguns. The government also charged them with using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence (namely, the armed bank robbery), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Watson and Danielson pleaded guilty to both offenses. The district court sentenced Watson to 192 months and Danielson to 182 months in prison.

Watson and Danielson did not appeal. But less than a year after entry of judgment, they filed...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP