United States v. Jerome Wilson
880 F.3d 80 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Unarmed bank robbery by intimidation under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) categorically qualifies as a 'crime of violence' under the United States Sentencing Guidelines because the element of 'intimidation' inherently involves the threatened use of physical force.
Facts:
- Jerome Wilson committed two bank robberies and one attempted bank robbery.
- Wilson did not use a weapon in any of the incidents.
- To carry out the robberies, Wilson passed demand notes to bank tellers.
- In one of the completed robberies, the note stated, 'this is a hold up, empty your drawers now, or else.'
Procedural Posture:
- Jerome Wilson was charged in the United States District Court.
- Wilson pleaded guilty to three counts of unarmed bank robbery or attempted bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
- A Presentence Report recommended that Wilson be classified as a 'career offender' under the Sentencing Guidelines, based on the determination that his prior convictions under § 2113(a) were 'crimes of violence'.
- At sentencing, Wilson objected to the career-offender enhancement, arguing that § 2113(a) does not meet the definition of a 'crime of violence.'
- The District Court overruled Wilson's objection, applied the career-offender enhancement, and sentenced him to 151 months' imprisonment.
- Wilson appealed his sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does unarmed bank robbery by intimidation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), categorically qualify as a 'crime of violence' under the 'elements' clause of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1)?
Opinions:
Majority - Jordan, Circuit Judge
Yes, unarmed bank robbery by intimidation is categorically a 'crime of violence' under the Sentencing Guidelines. The court, applying the categorical approach, determined that the least culpable conduct criminalized by 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) is bank robbery by intimidation. The Guidelines define a 'crime of violence' as an offense that has as an element the 'threatened use of physical force.' The court reasoned that 'intimidation,' as used in the statute, means 'to make fearful,' which requires a threat of force. This is evaluated under an objective standard: whether an ordinary person in the victim's position would reasonably infer a threat of bodily harm. The court rejected the argument that this objective standard punishes negligent conduct, citing Supreme Court precedent in Carter v. United States, which established that § 2113(a) requires general intent—the defendant must knowingly engage in an act that would cause an ordinary person to be intimidated. Because the statute requires a knowing act of intimidation, it necessarily involves the threatened use of physical force and therefore qualifies as a crime of violence.
Analysis:
This decision formally aligns the Third Circuit with a strong consensus among at least seven other federal circuits, promoting national uniformity in applying the career-offender sentencing enhancement. The court's analysis solidifies the legal interpretation of 'intimidation' under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) as inherently involving a threatened use of force, sufficient to meet the Sentencing Guidelines' definition of a crime of violence. By distinguishing the Supreme Court's reasoning in Elonis, the opinion clarifies that a statute requiring general intent (knowingly taking property) does not risk criminalizing innocent conduct, even when one element (intimidation) is judged by an objective standard. This holding significantly limits defendants' ability to argue that unarmed bank robbery by note is not a predicate offense for career-offender status.
