Whether a conviction for conspiring to commit felony bank theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2113(b), requires the government to prove that the defendant intended to steal more than $1,000 because the valuation element is a substantive element of the offense

QUESTION PRESENTED Rickie Foy was convicted of conspiring to commit felony bank theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2113(b), for unsuccessfully attempting to break into an ATM. Section 2113(b) makes it a felony offense to steal a bank’s money “exceeding $1,000” (first paragraph) and a misdemeanor offense to steal money “not exceeding $1,000” (second paragraph). This Court has held that § 2113(b) describes two “distinct offenses” and that the valuation requirement is an “element of each paragraph’s offense, rather than a sentencing factor.” Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255, 272-273 (2000). The district court sustained Mr. Foy’s felony conviction after a three-hour trial by videoconference, even though the government submitted no evidence and made no argument that Mr. Foy had intended to steal more than $1,000. The court of appeals affirmed and held that no mens rea requirement applies to the valuation element of the felony offense under § 2113(b). The question presented is: Whether a conviction for conspiring to commit felony bank theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2113(b), requires the government to prove that the defendant intended to steal more than $1,000 because the valuation element is a substantive element of the offense. ii STATEMENT OF