United States v. D. D. B., 903 F.3d 684

D.D.B., a juvenile, participated in a pharmacy robbery; the government moved under 18 U.S.C. § 5032 to transfer him to adult prosecution because he had prior juvenile adjudications.
The government relied on prior Indiana attempted robbery (Class B felony) as a predicate violent offense required for mandatory transfer; the district court found it qualified.
The appeal raised two preliminary questions: timeliness of the appeal (14-day criminal vs. 60-day civil deadline) and whether Indiana attempted robbery is a “crime of violence” under § 5032 (i.e., has as an element the use/attempted use/threatened use of physical force).
The court held the transfer appeal is from a civil proceeding (juvenile transfer) and therefore governed by the 60-day civil appeal period; D.D.B.’s appeal was timely.
On the substantive issue, the court concluded Indiana attempted robbery does not necessarily require intent to commit the completed crime’s violent element, unlike attempt statutes in some other States, and therefore cannot categorically be treated as a crime of violence for § 5032 purposes.
The district court’s transfer order was vacated and the case remanded; the government may pursue other preserved predicate offenses on remand (burglary, conspiracy to commit robbery).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the appeal timely?	Gov: transfer order appeal is criminal; 14-day rule applies; D.D.B.’s appeal was late.	D.D.B.: transfer proceeding is civil; 60-day civil appeal applies; his appeal was timely.	Appeal is from a civil transfer proceeding; 60-day period applies; appeal timely.
Is Indiana attempted robbery a "crime of violence" under § 5032?	Gov: attempted robbery is a violent felony because attempt to commit a violent offense is itself violent (per Hill/Duncan).	D.D.B.: Indiana attempt statute lacks an intent element to commit completed crime’s violent element, so conviction does not necessarily establish attempted use/threat of force.	Indiana attempted robbery does not require intent to commit the violent element; therefore it is not categorically a crime of violence under § 5032; district court erred.

United States v. Duncan, 833 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2016) (held Indiana robbery is a violent felony under ACCA)
Hill v. United States, 877 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2017) (held an attempt to commit a substantive violent offense is itself a violent felony when attempt requires intent to commit all elements)
Morris v. United States, 827 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2016) (concurring analysis that attempt requires intent to commit each element)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (categorical-approach principle: courts look only to statutory elements of prior offenses)
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (explaining practical purposes of the categorical approach)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (defining elements vs. facts for categorical inquiry)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, excluding the fact of prior conviction)