United States v. Jemel King, 16-3329

In 2015 King was charged with armed bank robbery–related felonies and was court‑appointed counsel.
Months before trial King wrote to the District Court seeking substitution, alleging his counsel pressured him to plead, refused to review discovery, and was uncooperative; the court denied the motion without a hearing.
A jury convicted King of conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 371), aiding and abetting armed bank robbery (18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113(d)), and aiding and abetting brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)).
On appeal King challenged the § 924(c) conviction, arguing his predicate (§ 2113(d)/§ 2113(a)) is not a "crime of violence" after Borden.
King also argued the District Court’s denial of his request to substitute counsel without inquiry was structural error requiring reversal; the Government conceded abuse of discretion.
This Court removed King’s initial appellate counsel for filing an Anders brief after delays, appointed new counsel, and resolved the two issues on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2113(d)/(a) is a "crime of violence" for § 924(c) purposes	King: Borden means statutes allowing reckless mens rea cannot qualify; § 2113(a) could encompass nonviolent/reckless conduct	Gov/Court: Carter holds § 2113(a) requires knowledge; Wilson already held unarmed robbery by intimidation is categorically a crime of violence	Affirmed § 924(c) conviction; predicate remains a crime of violence
Whether denial of substitution motion without inquiry is structural error	King: Failure to inquire about good cause is structural and requires reversal	Gov: Concedes abuse of discretion but contends under Senke relief is via § 2255, not direct reversal	No structural error; must pursue relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for court‑appointed counsel who believes an appeal is frivolous)
United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (endorses categorical approach for § 924(c) "crime of violence" analysis)
Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021) (statutes with reckless mens rea do not qualify as crimes of violence)
United States v. Wilson, 880 F.3d 80 (3d Cir. 2018) (held unarmed bank robbery by intimidation is categorically a crime of violence)
Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255 (2000) (held § 2113(a) requires a mens rea of knowledge)
United States v. Senke, 986 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2021) (failure to inquire about substitution of counsel is not structural; remedy via § 2255)