Fourth Circuit keeps extra gun count in attempted armed bank robberies

People convicted of attempted armed bank robbery can still face a separate federal gun count after a published Fourth Circuit ruling on May 18. In United States v. Monte Straite, the court said attempted armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) is categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3), the definition prosecutors use to attach a separate firearm conviction.

The case came out of the Middle District of North Carolina. The panel affirmed in a published opinion written by Judge Gregory and joined by Judges Richardson and Rushing.

A weapon, an assault, and no escape hatch

The court focused on the language of § 2113(d). A defendant who commits or tries to commit armed bank robbery must assault someone or put a life in jeopardy by using a dangerous weapon or device, the panel said. That is enough, in the court’s view, to satisfy the federal violence test because it necessarily involves the use, attempted use or threatened use of force.

Straite argued the statute was too broad because it could supposedly reach a defendant who endangered only himself. The court rejected that reading, saying assault is force against another person, not a self-inflicted threat.

Why the firearm count survives

That interpretation preserves an important sentencing tool in robbery cases. If attempted armed bank robbery qualifies as a crime of violence, prosecutors can keep using it as the predicate for a separate § 924(c) firearm charge, which can add a significant gun penalty on top of the robbery count.

Straite’s case grew out of 2009 Bank of America robberies in Davie County, North Carolina. In the first, the crew brandished firearms and assaulted employees. When the group returned later, the bank manager locked the building and stopped the robbery before it went any further.