United States v. Anderson
Criminal No. 2002-0008
D.D.C.Sep 24, 2025Background
- Indictment against Jesse Toussaint Anderson on five counts including armed bank robbery (Counts One and Three), use of a firearm during a crime of violence (Counts Two and Four), and unlawful firearm possession by a felon (Count Five).
- Plea: Anderson pled guilty to Counts One, Two, and Five; Count Two pursued as a 924(c) conviction tied to Count One.
- PSR listed nine prior convictions; under ACCA, Anderson was labeled an armed career criminal with a high offense level.
- Judgment imposed May 29, 2002: 300 months for Counts One and Five concurrent, plus 84 months consecutive for Count Two; total 384 months.
- Anderson challenged the sentence via 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in 2016, including Johnson v. United States arguments; the Court denied relief on July 10, 2025, and the D.C. Circuit held the appeal in abeyance pending COA determination.
- Court ultimately held a certificate of appealability is warranted as to whether armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d) is a “crime of violence” under 924(c)(3)’s elements clause, with respect to Count Two being predicated on a qualifying crime of violence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maryland armed robbery is a violent felony under ACCA’s elements clause | Anderson argues Redrick controls; Maryland robbery with a deadly weapon is a violent felony | Court should follow Redrick’s interpretation; argues equivalence under ACCA | Held: Maryland armed robbery qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA. |
| Whether Maryland robbery with a deadly weapon is a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2’s elements clause | Redrick forecloses argument that it is not a crime of violence | Adopts similar reasoning to ACCA interpretation | Held: Maryland robbery with a deadly weapon qualifies as a crime of violence under § 4B1.2. |
| Whether armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d) is a crime of violence under 924(c)(3)’s elements clause | Burwell left question open for § 2113(d); 2113(d) satisfies use of force | Burwell limited to § 2113(a); question remains for § 2113(d) | Held: § 2113(d) qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)’s elements clause. |
| Whether a certificate of appealability is warranted given the issues | Courts have acknowledged potential for different interpretations; COA warranted | Authority for COA depends on debatable issues | Held: certificate of appealability warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Redrick, 841 F.3d 478 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (Maryland armed robbery qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA)
- United States v. Burwell, 122 F.4th 984 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (Bank robbery under § 2113(a) not categorically a crime of violence; question reserved for § 2113(d))
- United States v. Freeman, 788 F. App’x 7 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (Balancing guidance on § 4B1.2’s elements clause)
- United States v. Watson, 881 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 2018) (Divisible/undivisible analysis of § 2113(a) bank robbery vs. extortion)
- United States v. Evans, 924 F.3d 21 (2d Cir. 2019) (§ 2113(a) bank robbery and crime of violence discussion)
- United States v. King, 965 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2020) (Divisible approach to § 2113(a) bank robbery/ extortion)
- United States v. Armstrong, 122 F.4th 1278 (11th Cir. 2024) (Bank robbery as crime of violence under § 924(c)(3))
- United States v. Vines, 134 F.4th 730 (3d Cir. 2025) (Contemporary circuit view on § 924(c) crimes of violence)
- Mitchell v. United States, 216 F.3d 1126 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Certificate of appealability—debatable issues)
- Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983) (Standard for COA substantial showing of denial of constitutional rights)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (COA showing standard disclosure)
- United States v. Freeman, 788 F. App’x 7 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (discussed above)