United States v. Neal Bain, 925 F.3d 1172

In 2014 Bain robbed several banks; he pleaded guilty to two counts of unarmed bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)) and one count charged as armed bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d)).
At the Tempe MidFirst Bank robbery (Count 2), Bain demanded money, pulled a plastic bag and a closed folding pocket knife from the same pocket, and placed the closed knife on the counter while taking the money; he never opened, brandished, threatened with, or referenced the knife.
At two change-of-plea hearings the magistrate judge initially questioned whether the factual basis supported the armed element ("put in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon"), then accepted the factual basis after rereading the model jury instruction; Bain expressed confusion during the plea colloquy.
At sentencing Bain reiterated that the knife was inadvertent, not intended for the robbery, and that he did not brandish or use it; the district court sentenced him to concurrent terms, with a longer term on the armed count.
On appeal Bain argued the Rule 11(b)(3) factual-basis requirement was not satisfied for the armed element; the government conceded the assault prong did not apply, leaving only the "puts in jeopardy"/"use" element.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was a sufficient factual basis under Rule 11(b)(3) that Bain "put in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon" (18 U.S.C. § 2113(d)).	Government: placement of the knife on the counter constituted a "use" (silent/obvious presence) supporting armed robbery.	Bain: the knife was pulled inadvertently, remained closed, was not brandished, and was not used to put anyone in jeopardy.	Reversed: the closed, inadvertent placement of the pocket knife did not constitute the required "use"; Rule 11 error was plain and affected substantial rights.

Wagner v. United States, 264 F.2d 524 (9th Cir. 1959) (weapon must place victim in an objective state of danger for aggravated robbery)
Coulter v. United States, 474 F.2d 1004 (9th Cir. 1973) (applies Wagner’s objective-danger standard to § 2113(d))
United States v. Odom, 329 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2003) (inadvertent, concealed display of weapon without making victims aware is not a "use" under § 2113(d))
Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995) ("use" includes active employment such as brandishing or an "obvious and forceful" silent presence; context-specific)
Monzon v. United States, 429 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir. 2005) (plain Rule 11 error affects substantial rights when defendant likely would have proceeded to trial)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (framework for plain-error review)
Ameline v. United States, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (plain-error standards explained)
United States v. Davis, 854 F.3d 601 (9th Cir. 2017) (vacatur of sentence when one count is vacated and resentencing required)