King v. United States, 965 F.3d 60

Sean King was convicted in 2006 of, inter alia, bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)) and using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)); he is serving a 300‑month sentence after a 2011 resentencing agreement.
King sought leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion after Supreme Court decisions invalidated § 924(c)’s residual clause (Johnson II and Davis), arguing his § 2113(a) predicate is not a § 924(c) "crime of violence."
King’s core claim: § 2113(a) is an indivisible statute that lists alternative means (force, intimidation, extortion, burglary) so the categorical approach applies and the statute is overbroad under the § 924(c) force clause.
The First Circuit analyzed whether § 2113(a) is divisible (so the modified categorical approach applies) or indivisible (so the categorical approach applies), focusing on text, structure, legislative history, and precedent.
The court held § 2113(a) is divisible (robbery, extortion, and burglary are alternative elements), the indictment and jury instructions show King was convicted of taking by force/violence or intimidation, and that offense qualifies as a § 924(c)(3)(A) crime of violence; certifying a successive § 2255 was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Divisibility of § 2113(a)	§ 2113(a) is indivisible; the listed phrases are alternative means of one offense	Text, syntax ("take" v. "obtain"), legislative history, and sister‑circuit precedent show the clauses set out alternative elements	§ 2113(a) is divisible; robbery, extortion, burglary are alternative elements
Qualification as a § 924(c)(3)(A) crime of violence	Even if divisible, categorical approach shows statute criminalizes non‑violent conduct (extortion/burglary), so not a crime of violence	Modified categorical approach applies; indictment/jury instructions show conviction was for robbery by force/violence or intimidation, which is violent force	Under the modified categorical approach, King was convicted of robbery by force/intimidation, which qualifies as a § 924(c) crime of violence; habeas relief denied

Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (determinative test for elements v. means)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (modified categorical approach explained)
Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 ("physical force" means violent force for force‑clause analysis)
United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (invalidating § 924(c) residual clause)
Hunter v. United States, 873 F.3d 388 (First Circuit: § 2113(a) bank robbery qualifies under § 924(c) force clause)
United States v. Ellison, 866 F.3d 32 (First Circuit discussion of § 2113(a) robbery/intimidation clause)
United States v. Cruz‑Rivera, 904 F.3d 63 (describing § 924(c) and force v. residual clauses)
United States v. King, 554 F.3d 177 (First Circuit direct appeal affirming most convictions)