Erskine James McKinley v. United States
698 F. App'x 597
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- McKinley pled guilty in 2014 to bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)) and to brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)).
- District court imposed 116 months for bank robbery, to be followed consecutively by an 84‑month mandatory term for the § 924(c) conviction.
- McKinley did not appeal; his conviction became final in October 2014. He filed a § 2255 motion in June 2016 challenging his § 924(c) conviction.
- He argued (1) the § 924(c) residual/risk‑of‑force clause is unconstitutionally vague under Johnson, and (2) bank robbery under § 2113(a) does not categorically qualify as a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)’s use‑of‑force clause because it can be committed by intimidation.
- The district court denied relief; the Eleventh Circuit considered the issues de novo on appeal and affirmed, concluding controlling circuit precedent foreclosed McKinley’s arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 924(c)(3)(B) residual/risk‑of‑force clause is void for vagueness under Johnson | Johnson renders the residual clause unconstitutionally vague, so McKinley’s § 924(c) conviction fails | Circuit precedent holds Johnson does not apply to § 924(c)(3)(B) | Rejected — Johnson does not invalidate § 924(c)(3)(B); claim foreclosed by Ovalles |
| Whether bank robbery under § 2113(a) qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A) use‑of‑force clause | Bank robbery can be committed by intimidation, so it is not categorically a use‑of‑force crime | Eleventh Circuit precedent treats § 2113(a) robbery (by force/violence or intimidation) as a crime of violence under the use‑of‑force clause | Rejected — § 2113(a) qualifies as a crime of violence under the use‑of‑force clause per In re Sams |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (Struck down ACCA residual clause; McKinley relied on it to attack § 924(c) residual clause)
- Ovalles v. United States, 861 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2017) (Holds Johnson does not invalidate § 924(c)(3)(B) risk‑of‑force clause)
- In re Sams, 830 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2016) (Holds § 2113(a) bank robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A))
- United States v. McGuire, 706 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2013) (Recognizes de novo standard for reviewing whether a prior conviction is a crime of violence)