United States v. William Boyd, 848 F.3d 711

David Lee Brewer and William Eugene Boyd each pleaded guilty to one count of federal bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and were sentenced separately.
The Probation Office applied the U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 career-offender enhancement because the instant offense was treated as a "crime of violence," raising offense levels and criminal-history categories for both defendants.
Both defendants objected that federal bank robbery (specifically robbery by intimidation) is not a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). District courts overruled the objections and imposed within-Guidelines sentences.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo whether federal bank robbery qualifies as a "crime of violence" for § 4B1.1 purposes, applying the categorical approach.
The statutory bank-robbery offense can be satisfied by robbery "by intimidation," which the court treated as the least culpable conduct at issue. The central question was whether intimidation necessarily involves the threatened, attempted, or actual use of physical force.
The court concluded that "intimidation" in the bank-robbery context necessarily involves at least an implicit threat of physical force, so bank robbery qualifies as a "crime of violence" under § 4B1.2(a)(1).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal bank robbery (robbery by intimidation) is a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1)	Brewer/Boyd: "Intimidation" can be broader than a threat of physical force and may not necessarily involve threatened, attempted, or actual force	Government/District Courts: Intimidation in bank-robbery cases necessarily includes at least an implicit threat of physical force sufficient to meet § 4B1.2(a)(1)	The Fifth Circuit held that bank robbery by intimidation involves an implicit threat of physical force and is a "crime of violence" under § 4B1.2(a)(1)

United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312 (5th Cir. 1987) (defines "intimidation" in bank-robbery context as acts reasonably calculated to put victim in fear)
United States v. Flores-Vasquez, 641 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2011) (categorical approach review of prior-offense characterization)
United States v. Elizondo-Hernandez, 755 F.3d 779 (5th Cir. 2014) (categorical-approach principles applied to prior offenses)
United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2013) (elements-based categorical analysis)
United States v. Carrasco-Tercero, 745 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 2014) (realistic-probability standard explained)
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (standard for assuming least culpable conduct under categorical approach)
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (requiring evidence of realistic probability, not theoretical possibility)
United States v. Wright, 957 F.2d 520 (8th Cir. 1992) (bank robbery is a crime of violence under § 4B1.2(a)(1))
United States v. Jones, 932 F.2d 624 (7th Cir. 1991) (same)
United States v. Selfa, 918 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 1990) (same)
United States v. Maddalena, 893 F.2d 815 (6th Cir. 1989) (same)
United States v. Hopkins, 703 F.2d 1102 (9th Cir. 1983) (victim testimony supported intimidation finding)
United States v. Robinson, 527 F.2d 1170 (6th Cir. 1975) (implicit threat found from conduct accompanying demand)