841 F.3d 656
4th Cir.2016Background
- Ernest Lee Williams, Jr. attempted to enter a Southern Bank wearing gloves and a hood; a teller locked doors and he left without obtaining money. Police stopped and identified him; he admitted he intended to tell tellers to put money in his bag and had no weapon or note.
- A federal grand jury charged Williams under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) for attempting to enter a bank with intent to commit a felony and larceny (i.e., the burglary prong), and Williams pleaded guilty.
- At sentencing the probation officer applied the robbery guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1, producing a guideline range of 37–46 months (after adjustments) and the district court imposed 38 months.
- Williams objected, arguing the indictment described attempted burglary (entry with intent) and omitted robbery’s element of force, violence, intimidation, or extortion, so the burglary guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2B2.1, should apply (yielding a much lower range).
- The district court justified using the robbery guideline because it contains a bank-targeting enhancement (not present in the burglary guideline).
- The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing, holding the robbery guideline is inapplicable when the indictment omits robbery elements; the correct guideline is the burglary guideline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the robbery guideline (U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1) or the burglary guideline (U.S.S.G. § 2B2.1) governs sentencing for Williams’s § 2113(a) conviction | Williams: Indictment charges attempted entry with intent to commit felony (burglary prong); indictment omits force/violence/intimidation/extortion, so robbery guideline inapplicable | Government: Robbery guideline appropriate because it includes an enhancement for targeting financial institutions, making it the more fitting guideline | Court: Vacated sentence; burglary guideline applies because sentencing selection must be tied to the offense of conviction as charged, and the indictment lacks robbery’s elements |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832 (4th Cir. 2010) (guide selection based on the guideline that best fits the offense charged in the indictment)
- United States v. Davis, 202 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 2000) (de novo review of guideline selection)
- United States v. Ketchum, 550 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2008) (robbery under § 2113(a) requires force, violence, intimidation, or extortion)
- United States v. Carter, 540 F.2d 753 (4th Cir. 1976) (same, clarifying robbery elements under § 2113(a))
- United States v. Lambert, 994 F.2d 1088 (4th Cir. 1993) (when multiple guidelines could apply, choose the most applicable by comparing guideline text to the charged misconduct)
- United States v. Almeida, 710 F.3d 437 (1st Cir. 2013) (vacating robbery-guideline sentence where indictment and charge described burglary, not robbery)