Whether the district court committed structural error by finding that the sentence for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e) should be 10 years to life imprisonment, where said statute appears to contemplate a sentence of 10 to 25 years unless death results, and whether the Fourth Circuit erred in affirming the petitioner's life sentence by applying a questionable 'default rule' rather than the rule of lenity

QUESTION PRESENTED I. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT COMMITTED STRUCTURAL ERROR : BY FINDING THAT THE SENTENCE FOR A VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e) SHOULD BE 10 YEARS TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT, WHERE SAID : STATUTE APPEARS TO CONTEMPLATE A SENTENCE OF 10 TO 25 | YEARS UNLESS DEATH RESULTS, AND WHETHER THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE PETITIONER'S LIFE SENTENCE BY APPLYING A QUESTIONABLE “DEFAULT RULE” RATHER THAN : THE RULE OF LENITY. : ll. WHETHER THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL i RIGHTS OF A DEFENDANT WHO CHOSE TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WERE VIOLATED WHERE HE WAS CONTINUALLY ADVISED THAT THE PENALTY FOR A VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e) WAS 10 TO 25 i YEARS, AND THEN, AFTER VERDICT, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE WAS LIFE IMPRISONMENT, AND A LIFE SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED. | | | Al ‘ | i : | ii