United States v. Anthony Jordan
680 F. App'x 634
9th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Anthony Jordan was convicted of aiding and abetting the use, carry, or brandishing of a firearm during three bank robberies in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) and § 2.
- Jordan’s co‑defendant Marquee Munerlyn testified that Jordan knew Munerlyn would carry and possibly brandish a firearm during the robberies.
- Evidence showed Jordan and Munerlyn had committed six prior robberies together; Munerlyn carried a gun in all and brandished it in some.
- Jordan did not object at trial to the use of his bank robbery convictions as predicate “crimes of violence” for § 924(c), so appellate review on that point was for plain error.
- The district court sentenced Jordan to 730 months; Jordan challenged the sentence as cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 924(c) (knowledge) | Government: testimony and prior-robbery pattern show Jordan knew Munerlyn would carry/brandish a gun | Jordan: government failed to prove he had foreknowledge of the firearm use/brandishing | Court: Evidence (co‑defendant testimony + past robberies) sufficient beyond reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed |
| Whether 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) is a categorical "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(A) | Government: Ninth Circuit precedent holds § 2113(a) fits the elements clause | Jordan: After Johnson/Mathis, § 2113(a) no longer categorically qualifies | Court: Reviewed for plain error; existing Ninth Circuit precedent controls—§ 2113(a) is a crime of violence; no plain error reversal |
| Eighth Amendment challenge to 730‑month sentence | N/A (sentence challenged by Jordan) | Jordan: sentence is cruel and unusual | Court: Reviewed de novo but Jordan’s challenge foreclosed by circuit precedent; sentence upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bennett, 621 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (view evidence in light most favorable to the government)
- United States v. Gonzalez‑Aparicio, 663 F.3d 419 (9th Cir. 2011) (plain error review when defendant fails to object to characterization of a prior conviction)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (defining plain error standard)
- United States v. Wright, 215 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding § 2113(a) is a crime of violence under the elements clause)
- United States v. Selfa, 918 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 1990) (same)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (addressing categorical approach to defining violent felonies)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (limiting use of modified categorical approach)
- United States v. Hungerford, 465 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2006) (Eighth Amendment sentence proportionality review)