United States v. Hendricks
921 F.3d 320
2d Cir.2019Background
- On Aug. 19, 2013, Robert Hendricks and three others robbed Access Federal Credit Union in Rome, NY; two men brandished handguns, forced a teller to open the vault, filled a backpack with cash, and fled. Robert was accused of directly threatening and restraining employees during the robbery.
- Indictment charged Robert with credit union robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), aiding and abetting) and using a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)). Co-defendant Taiquan pled guilty; Shakeal testified for the Government. A jury convicted Robert on both counts.
- At trial the Government elicited victims’ testimony about fear during the robbery and the robbery’s aftermath; defense sought to introduce a photograph of a third party ("Bam") as an alternate perpetrator but the court ultimately excluded it.
- At sentencing the court designated Robert a career offender under the 2014 U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on prior convictions (including NY burglary in the second degree) and imposed a 360‑month total sentence. Robert appealed.
- The Second Circuit reviewed: whether § 2113(a) robbery is a "crime of violence" under § 924(c); admission of victim-impact testimony; exclusion of the third‑party photograph; and career-offender classification under the Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Govt) | Defendant's Argument (Hendricks) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2113(a) credit-union robbery is a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(A) (force clause) | § 2113(a) robbery "by force and violence or intimidation" necessarily involves threatened physical force and thus qualifies | Hendricks: § 2113(a) could criminalize negligent/intangible intimidation and therefore might not categorically require force | Court: Affirmed — robbery "by intimidation" requires at least knowledge that conduct would create impression resistance would be met by force, so it categorically qualifies under the force clause |
| Admissibility of victims’ testimony about post‑robbery impact | Testimony about victims’ fear and aftermath is relevant to whether robbery was committed "by intimidation" | Hendricks: Post‑incident impact testimony is irrelevant and unduly prejudicial (including racially charged comments) | Court: Partially erred — admitting post‑incident testimony by one customer-service rep (racially charged) was abuse of discretion but harmless given overwhelming evidence; tellers’ inability to return to work admissible |
| Exclusion of third‑party photograph (Bam) offered as alternate perpetrator evidence | Photo and circumstantial ties (calls, acquaintanceship, shopping) supported a sufficient nexus to admit the photo | Court treated evidence as speculative and insufficient to connect Bam to the crime scene or participation | Court: No abuse of discretion — exclusion proper for lack of sufficient nexus |
| Career‑offender classification under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on NY burglary conviction and residual clause § 4B1.2(a)(2) | Guidelines classify burglary (including lesser degrees) as crimes of violence under the residual clause; Beckles forecloses vagueness challenge | Hendricks: The residual clause is unconstitutionally vague; NY burglary should not count as a crime of violence for career‑offender status | Court: No plain error — Beckles forecloses vagueness challenge; NY burglary fits within the Guidelines’ residual clause, so career‑offender designation stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Sentencing Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenge; affects career‑offender residual‑clause analysis)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (articulating the categorical approach for determining whether a prior offense is a "crime of violence")
- Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019) (interpreting robbery and force‑clause analyses under federal enhancement provisions)
- Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) (mens rea and force‑related statutory interpretation principles)
- United States v. Hill, 890 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2018) (applying categorical approach to § 924(c) and crimes of violence)
- United States v. McBride, 826 F.3d 293 (6th Cir. 2016) (holding bank robbery by intimidation requires knowledge and qualifies as crime of violence)