No. 20-5396
Austin Peterson v. United States
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: 18-usc-2113 18-usc-924 bank-robbery crime-of-violence elements-clause federal-armed-bank-robbery federal-criminal-law sentencing-enhancement statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
Takings HabeasCorpus
Takings HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2021-06-17
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether federal armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) qualifies as a crime of violence under the elements clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
Question Presented for Review 1. Federal armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) can be committed “by force and violence, or by intimidation... or... by extortion” and, therefore, does not require the specific intent to use, attempt to use, or threaten to use violent physical force. Numerous federal circuits interpret bank robbery to include such minimal, nonviolent conduct as a request for money. Does this offense nevertheless qualify as a crime of violence under the elements clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)? i
Docket Entries
2021-06-21
Petition DENIED.
2021-06-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/17/2021.
2020-11-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/20/2020.
2020-10-26
Reply of petitioner Austin Peterson filed.
2020-10-16
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2020-09-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 19, 2020.
2020-09-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 17, 2020 to October 19, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-08-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 17, 2020)
Attorneys
Austin Peterson
Cristen Thayer — Federal Public Defender, District of Nevada, Petitioner
Cristen Thayer — Federal Public Defender, District of Nevada, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent