Opinion ID: 583325
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Violent Felony

Text: 5 Appellant moved to strike the portion of the indictment invoking § 924(e)(1) on the grounds that the 1975 robbery conviction was not a violent felony. 5 Appellant had been convicted of robbery under section 22-2901 of the D.C.Code. 6 6 [295 U.S.App.D.C. 299] On May 14, 1990, the district court below denied appellant's motion and concluded that the 1975 offense was a violent felony. See United States v. Mathis, 739 F.Supp. 15 (D.D.C.1990). The district court interpreted section 22-2901 as requiring the government to prove force or violence as a necessary element of the offense. The court also acknowledged that cases interpreting this D.C. statute support the conclusion that pickpockets have been convicted of robbery under section 22-2901, rather than of the lesser offense of larceny, for stealthy grabs at property from a victim's pocket where the victim was totally unaware. Id. at 19 (citing Spencer v. United States, 116 F.2d 801 (D.C.Cir.1940), and Turner v. United States, 16 F.2d 535 (D.C.Cir.1926)). 7 The district court emphasized that it did not base its decision that the 1975 robbery conviction was a violent felony on the underlying facts of that conviction. Relying on United States v. Sherbondy, 865 F.2d 996 (9th Cir.1988), and United States v. Headspeth, 852 F.2d 753 (4th Cir.1988), the court concluded that [i]n deciding whether an offense is a 'violent felony' under the definition in subsection (i) of § 924(e)(2)(B), a court must examine the statute of the offense and determine whether it has 'as an element' the use of force; the court should not examine the actual conduct underlying the offense. Mathis, 739 F.Supp. at 17 (emphasis in original). 7