Court Opinion

ID: 9404428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 00:00:42.170726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.825052
License: Public Domain

Case: 19-10261     Document: 00516796872          Page: 1     Date Filed: 06/22/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                           Fifth Circuit

                                                                         FILED
                                                                     June 22, 2023
                                  No. 19-10261                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                Summary Calendar                         Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                               Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Blake Taylor,

                                                            Defendant—Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:18-CR-231-1

                    ON REMAND FROM
         THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before Stewart, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*
          Blake Taylor pleaded guilty to one count of attempted bank robbery,
   in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and one count of using, carrying,

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
   circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-10261      Document: 00516796872           Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/22/2023

                                     No. 19-10261

   brandishing, and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of
   violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). The district court
   sentenced him above the guidelines range to a term of 180 months in prison
   on the robbery count with a consecutive term of 360 months on the firearm
   count, and this court affirmed the convictions and sentences. United States
   v. Taylor, 844 F. App’x 705, 708-10 (5th Cir. 2021), vacated, 142 S. Ct. 2862
   (2022). Taylor petitioned the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari,
   vacated this court’s judgment, and remanded for further consideration in
   light of United States v. Taylor (Justin Taylor), 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022). Taylor
   v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2862 (2022).
          On remand, Taylor presses several arguments against classifying his
   attempted bank robbery conviction as a “crime of violence” under
   § 924(c)(3)(A) and maintains that he preserved them by filing a motion to
   dismiss. Because the sole argument presented in that motion concerned
   § 924(c)(3)(B), which is not at issue here, this position is untenable, and the
   Government is thus correct that our review is for plain error. See Puckett v.
   United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Gomez-Valle, 828
   F.3d 324, 328 (5th Cir. 2016). In any event, our consideration of Taylor’s
   arguments leads us to conclude that he shows no error, plain or otherwise.
          Justin Taylor held that a conviction for attempt to commit robbery in
   violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), cannot serve as a predicate
   for conviction under § 924(c) because it does not constitute a “crime of
   violence” as defined in § 924(c)(3)(A). 142 S. Ct. at 2020-21. To meet that
   definition, an offense must necessarily require proof, as an element of the
   offense, of the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force. Id. at 2020.
   The only conduct required to support conviction for attempted Hobbs Act
   robbery is a substantial step toward completing such a robbery—an element
   that Justin Taylor determined encompasses conduct beyond the scope of
   § 924(c)(3)(A). Id. at 2020-21.

                                          2
Case: 19-10261      Document: 00516796872           Page: 3    Date Filed: 06/22/2023

                                     No. 19-10261

          Some attempt offenses are defined in the same way as attempted
   Hobbs Act robbery. See United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 106-
   07 (2007). In this circuit, attempted bank robbery is not one of them. This
   court has instead held that § 2113(a) defines attempted and completed bank
   robbery as forms of a single offense that necessarily involves the actual use of
   force or intimidation. See United States v. Bellew, 369 F.3d 450, 454 (5th Cir.
   2004). Further, we have held that this offense constitutes a crime of violence
   as defined in § 924(c)(3)(A) and elsewhere because even its least culpable
   form “must involve at least an implicit threat to use force.” United States v.
   Brewer, 848 F.3d 711, 716 (5th Cir. 2017); see United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d
   546, 552-53 (5th Cir. 2019).
          Under this court’s rule of orderliness, panels are bound by circuit
   precedent in the absence of an intervening change in the law such as a
   “contrary or superseding decision by this court sitting en banc or by the
   United States Supreme Court.” United States v. Setser, 607 F.3d 128, 131 (5th
   Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To qualify as an
   intervening change in the law, a decision must “unequivocally overrule prior
   precedent; mere illumination of a case is insufficient.” United States v. Petras,
   879 F.3d 155, 164 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations
   omitted).
          Taylor does not argue that Bellew, Brewer, or Pervis have been
   overruled, urging instead that aspects of Justin Taylor’s reasoning are
   instructive here. For instance, he suggests this court should adopt a
   definition of attempted bank robbery that parallels the definition of attempted
   Hobbs Act robbery used in Justin Taylor. Even if we were to credit such
   arguments, we would not be justified in accepting them as a sufficient basis
   for disregarding our precedent. See Petras, 879 F.3d at 164; Jacobs v. Nat’l
   Drug Intelligence Ctr., 548 F.3d 375, 377-78 (5th Cir. 2008).

                                          3
Case: 19-10261      Document: 00516796872           Page: 4    Date Filed: 06/22/2023

                                     No. 19-10261

          The remaining contentions that Taylor advances do not rely on Justin
   Taylor at all. First, he argues that the two paragraphs of § 2113(a) are
   indivisible—a theory this court rejected in United States v. Butler, 949 F.3d
   230, 234-36 (5th Cir. 2020). Second, Taylor contends that convictions under
   § 2113(a) and (d) do not qualify as crimes of violence. We have long held that
   violation of § 2113(a) is a lesser-included offense of a § 2113(d) violation. See
   Burger v. United States, 454 F.2d 723, 724 (5th Cir. 1972) (per curiam). Thus,
   as Taylor’s arguments against classifying § 2113(a) robbery as a crime of
   violence are unavailing, this argument must fail as well.
          For these reasons, Taylor fails to show that the district court erred by
   viewing his conviction under § 2113(a) and (d) as a crime of violence for the
   purpose of § 924(c). He does not suggest that Justin Taylor provides any
   basis for questioning our prior analysis of the remaining issues in this appeal,
   and we discern none. See Taylor, 844 F. App’x 708-10. Accordingly, we again
   AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

                                          4