96 F.4th 584
3d Cir.2024Background
- Mark Jordan was convicted of three counts of armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) and two counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) after robbing banks while armed and sometimes firing a gun.
- Jordan pled guilty and received a 318-month sentence; he later challenged his sentence via a second motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing his convictions under § 2113(d) do not qualify as crimes of violence under § 924(c).
- The catalyst for Jordan’s argument was the Supreme Court’s decision in Borden v. United States, which held that crimes that can be committed recklessly do not qualify as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA); the elements clause in § 924(c) mirrors ACCA’s language.
- The District Court denied Jordan’s motion, finding that binding Third Circuit precedent (pre-Borden) still applied, and that the relevant federal armed bank robbery statute does not criminalize reckless conduct.
- The Third Circuit reviewed whether § 2113(d) is a crime of violence under § 924(c) post-Borden, requiring analysis of the statute's divisibility and the precise nature of Jordan’s offense of conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Jordan's Argument | U.S. Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2113(d) is a crime of violence | Statute can be violated recklessly, so not a crime of violence | Statute requires purposeful/knowing action, not recklessness | § 2113(d) requires purpose or knowledge—affirmed |
| Whether § 2113(d) is divisible | Language is not disjunctive; not divisible | Predicate offenses (a) and (b) are independent, making it divisible | Statute is divisible, modified categorical applies |
| Effect of Borden on Third Circuit precedent | Borden abrogated precedent on § 2113(d) crime of violence status | Borden did not change elements needed for § 2113(d) via § 2113(a) | Precedent stands; Borden does not change ruling |
| Scope of “against the person of another” | § 2113(d) applies to any person, including self, thus too broad | Focus should be on specific elements of Jordan’s conviction | Jordan’s conviction involved force against another |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 899 F.3d 191 (3d Cir. 2018) (held § 2113(d) is a crime of violence under § 924(c))
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (invalidated the residual clause of § 924(c) as unconstitutionally vague)
- Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021) (reckless crimes not violent felonies under ACCA)
- Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) (articulates the categorical and modified categorical approaches)
- United States v. Wilson, 880 F.3d 80 (3d Cir. 2018) (§ 2113(a) requires purposeful or knowing conduct, not reckless or negligent conduct)
- United States v. Williams, 898 F.3d 323 (3d Cir. 2018) (RICO predicate crimes are divisible for categorical analysis)