N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. ANTHONY JOR

DAN, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10156

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-00221-APG-C W H-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Andre w P. Gordon, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 16, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , FUENTES, ** and R AW LINSON, C i rc u it Judge s. De fe nda nt Anthony

Jorda n a ppe a ls his c onvic t ions for a iding a nd a b e tting the u se , c arry , or bra

ndishing of a

fire arm during a nd in re lation to thre e ba

nk 

# F IL ED MAR 14 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Julio M . Fue nte s, Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Third C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.robbe rie s, in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 924(c )(1)(A) an d 18 U.S.C . § 2. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. First, Jorda

n c ha lle n ge s the suffic ie n c y of the e vide nc e supporting his fire arm c o nvic tions under § 924(c ). W e re v ie w denov o c ha lle nge s to the suffic i e nc y

of the e v ide nc e supporting a c onvic tion. Unite d State s v . Be nne tt , 621 F.3d 1131, 1135 (9th C ir. 2010). W e “ vie w[] the e vide nc e produc e d at tria l in the light m ost fa

v ora b le to the prose c ution” and c o nside r whe the r the e vide nc e “ is suffic i e nt to a llow a

ny rationa l juror to c onc lude tha t the gove rnm e nt ha s c a

rrie d its burde n of proof.” Unite d State

s v . N e v ils , 598 F.3d 1158, 1169 (9th C ir. 2010) (e n ba nc ). Jorda n a rgue s tha t the gove rnm e nt fa ile d to prove tha t he ha d fore knowle dge that his c o-robbe r would use , c a rry , or bra

ndish a fire a rm during thec ourse of the robbe rie s. Vie wing the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa vora ble to the gove rnm e nt, a
ra tiona l juror c ould find be y ond a re a sona ble doubt tha

t Jorda n ha d the re quisite knowle dge . Jorda

n’ s pa rtne r in the robbe rie s, M arque e M une rly n, te stifie d tha

t Jorda n kne w M une rly

n would c arry , a

n d possibly

brandish, a

fire arm . In a ddition, the j ury he ard e vide nc e tha

t Jorda n ha d pa rtic ipate d in six e arlie r robbe rie s with M une rly n a nd tha t M une rly n ha d c arrie d a

gun during al l of the robbe rie s a n d bran dishe d a

gun during some of the m . This e v ide nc e wa s suffic ie nt to sustain Jorda n ’ s c onvic tions under § 924(c ).
2Se c ond, Jorda n a rgue s tha t ba nk robbe ry

unde r 18 U.S.C . § 2113(a) is not
c ate goric a lly

a c rim e of viole nc e within the m e aning of § 924(c )(3)(A) and tha t his § 924(c ) c onvic t ions m

ust the re fore be se t a s ide
. 1 B e c a use Jorda n fa ile d to obje c t be fore the distric t c o urt to theuse of his ba nk robbe ry

c onvic tions a s pre dic ate
c rim e s for the § 924(c ) c ha rge s, we re vie w for pla in e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . Gonzale z-Aparic io , 663 F.3d 419, 426 (9th C ir. 2011) (a pply ing the pla in e rror sta nda rd whe re the de fe n da

n t fa ile d to obje c t to thec ha ra c te riz ation of his prior
c onvic tion a s a

“ c rim e of viole nc e ” ). Unde r the pla in e rror sta n da rd, “ the a ppe lla nt
m ust show tha

t: (1) the re wa s e rror; (2) the e rror c om m itte d wa s pla in; (3) the e rror
a ffe c te d substa

n tia l rights; a

nd (4) the e rror se riously

a ffe c te d the fa i rne ss, inte grity , or public re p utat ion of judic ia l proc e e dings.” Id. at 428. In orde r for an
e rror to be pla in, it m

u st a t le a st be “ c le ar unde r c urre nt la w.” U nite d State

s v . Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993). Unde r our c urre nt c a se la w, § 2113(a) bank robbe ry c ate g oric a lly

qua lifie s
a s a “ c rim e of viole n c e ” unde r § 924(c )(3)(A). Se e Unite d State s v . W right , 215 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th C ir. 2000); Unite d State s v . Se lfa , 918 F.2d 749, 751 (9th C i r. 1990). J ohnson v . Unite d State

s , 559 U.S. 133 (2010), J ohnson v . Unite d State

s ,

1 B e c a use we c onc lude that Jorda n’ s ba nk robbe ry

c onvic tions qua lify

a s c rim e s of viole nc e unde r the “ e le m e nts c la use ” of § 924(c )(3), we ne e d not re a c h his a rgum e nt tha

t the “ re sidua l c la

u se ,” § 924(c )(3)(B ), is unc o n stitutiona lly va gue . 3135 S. C t. 2551 (2015), a nd Mathis v . Unite d State s , 136 S. C t. 2243 (2016), ha ve not so c le arly

displa c e d our e a

rlie r pre c e de nts a s to wa

rran t pla in e rror re ve rsa l. Fina lly , Jorda

n a rgue s tha t his 730-month se nte nc e viola te s the Eighth Am e ndm e nt’ s prohibition on crue l a nd unusua l punishm e nt. W e re vie w denov o the c onstitutiona

lity of a se nte nc e unde r the Eighth Am e ndm e nt. Unite d State s v . Hunge rford

, 465 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th C i r. 2006). Jorda n’ s a rgum e nt is fore c lose d by c i rc uit pre c e de nt. Id. at 1118. AFFIRM E D.

4