122 F.4th 984
D.C. Cir.2024Background
- Bryan Burwell and Aaron Perkins were convicted for their roles in a series of bank robberies and received lengthy sentences, including mandatory minimums under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for use of a firearm in relation to a "crime of violence."
- The government conceded neither Burwell nor Perkins were leaders in the bank robbery scheme; their involvement primarily involved non-leadership roles.
- Both challenged their § 924(c) convictions after the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis, arguing bank robbery is not categorically a "crime of violence" because it can be accomplished by nonviolent means (e.g., extortion).
- The convictions under § 924(c) were based solely on the "elements clause" after Davis invalidated the residual clause as unconstitutionally vague.
- The case turns on whether federal bank robbery statute (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)) is divisible (i.e., listing alternative offenses) or indivisible (i.e., alternative means for a single offense) as to extortion.
Issues
| Issue | Burwell & Perkins's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 2113(a) divisible as to robbery by extortion? | Statute is indivisible; extortion is an alternative means to commit single offense of bank robbery. | Statute is divisible; extortion is a separate, nonviolent offense, tracking common law distinction. | Indivisible; all means are alternative ways to commit single offense. |
| Does federal bank robbery by extortion qualify as a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)? | No, because extortion can involve threats not constituting force/violence. | Yes, at least for bank robbery by force/violence or intimidation. | No; indivisibility means least culpable conduct governs—bank robbery is not a § 924(c) crime of violence. |
| Should Burwell’s and Perkins’s § 924(c) convictions be vacated? | Yes; convictions based on erroneous classification of offense as crime of violence. | No; statute historically viewed as including violent crimes. | Yes; convictions vacated and matter remanded to determine immediate release. |
| Does precedent compel a different conclusion on § 2113(a) divisibility? | No controlling precedent requires divisibility; out-of-circuit cases unpersuasive. | Other circuits have found statute divisible. | No; court follows its independent analysis and interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019) (held § 924(c) residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022) (applied categorical approach for crime of violence under § 924(c))
- Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) (established method for determining divisibility of statutes)
- Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (1999) (dictum on elements vs. means in criminal statutes)