Source: http://in.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20161006_0001014.NIN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-08-22 03:35:41
Document Index: 347657819

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2113', '§ 924', '§ 2255', '§ 2113', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924']

TIRENO WASHINGTON, RICO TORIANO KIMBROUGH, Petitioners,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent Nos. 3:16-cv-405, 3:16-cv-406
Tireno Washington and Rico Toriano Kimbrough pleaded guilty to armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), and using a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). This matter is before the court on their respective motions to vacate their sentences under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because the motions, issues, relevant facts, and rationales are identical, the court addresses both motions with a single opinion and order. For the reasons that follow, the court denies the motions of Messrs. Washington and Kimbrough.
Mr. Washington, Mr. Kimbrough, and others planned the robbery of Elcose Federal Credit Union in Elkhart, Indiana. The two pleaded guilty to armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Each of their sentences included a mandatory 60 month imprisonment for the possession conviction and required that it be served consecutively to their sentences for the robbery convictions. Today's issue is whether, after the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2251 (2015), armed bank robbery is a “crime of violence” as defined under § 924(c)(3). If not, then their § 924(c) possession convictions are invalid.
(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another [the “elements clause”], or
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Messrs. Washington and Kimbrough argue that armed bank robbery under &sect; 2113(d) isn&#39;t a &ldquo;crime of violence&rdquo; as defined under &sect; 924(c)(3). They argue: first, that armed bank robbery isn&#39;t a &ldquo;crime of violence&rdquo; under the elements clause, &sect; 924(c)(3)(A); second, that armed bank robbery isn&#39;t a &ldquo;crime of violence&rdquo; under the force clause, &sect; 924(c)(3)(B), because Johnson applies to § 924(c)(3)(B) as well as the ACCA; and third, as a result, both petitioners are innocent of violating § 924(c) and not subject to its mandatory five-year sentence. This court holds that armed ...