United States v. Malcolm Green, 684 F. App'x 300

Defendants Malcolm Xavier Green and Andre Antoine Walker pleaded guilty (conditionally) to conspiracy to commit bank robbery, bank robbery and armed bank robbery, and using/brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence.
Charges included violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2113(a), (d), and 924(c)(1)(A)(ii).
Both preserved the right to appeal the legal question about whether armed bank robbery qualifies as a "crime of violence."
Defendants argued the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by not adequately addressing their nonfrivolous mitigation arguments for lighter sentences.
The district court weighed the defendants’ backgrounds against a series of four bank robberies committed in under a month and imposed sentences; defendants appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether armed bank robbery qualifies as a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(A)	Gov't: armed bank robbery is a crime of violence	Green/Walker: armed bank robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence	Court: affirmed that armed bank robbery is a crime of violence (relying on McNeal)
Whether the sentences were procedurally unreasonable	Gov't: district court considered arguments and had reasoned basis	Green/Walker: district court ignored nonfrivolous mitigation arguments	Court: no abuse of discretion; district court adequately considered arguments and balanced factors

United States v. McNeal, 818 F.3d 141 (4th Cir. 2016) (held armed bank robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A))
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard and requirements for reasonableness review of sentences)
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (district court must make individualized sentencing assessment)
United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495 (4th Cir. 2010) (district court need not provide extensive explanation if it considered arguments and has reasoned basis)