No. 25-106

Ronald DeWitt Vines v. United States

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2025-07-29
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Experienced Counsel
Tags: attempted-crime bank-robbery circuit-split crime-of-violence force-definition statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2025-11-14
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether attempted armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) and the first paragraph of § 2113(a) involves the 'use, attempted use, or threatened use of force' in all possible hypothetical circumstances, such that it qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

This case implicates multiple acknowledged circuit splits as to how the categorical approach should apply to 18 U.S.C. § 2113, the federal bank robbery statute. Petitioner was convicted of one count under § 2113(d), based on an attempt to commit a violation of § 2113(a), and a second count under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The first paragraph of § 2113(a) provides that, “[w]hoever by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, from the person or presence of another, or obtains or attempts to obtain by extortion any property or money” belonging to a bank, shall be guilty of a crime. The circuits have split 5-1 as to whether this provision is divisible. And the circuits have further split 4-3 as to whether attempted bank robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c). Section 2113(d) complicates things even more. It punishes anyone who, “in attempting to commit, any offense defined in subsection[] (a) . . . assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device.” The circuits have divided over the elements necessary to sustain a conviction under this subsection as well. The question presented is: Whether attempted armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) and the first paragraph of § 2113(a) involves the “use, attempted use, or threatened use of force” in all possible hypothetical circumstances, such that it qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c). ii STATEMENT OF

Docket Entries

2025-11-17
Petition DENIED.
2025-10-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/14/2025.
2025-10-28
Reply of Ronald DeWitt Vines submitted.
2025-10-28
Reply of petitioner Ronald DeWitt Vines filed. (Distributed)
2025-10-14
Brief of United States in opposition submitted.
2025-10-14
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2025-09-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including October 14, 2025.
2025-09-25
Motion of United States for an extension of time submitted.
2025-09-25
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 29, 2025 to October 14, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2025-08-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 29, 2025.
2025-08-20
Motion of United States for an extension of time submitted.
2025-08-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 28, 2025 to September 29, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2025-07-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 28, 2025)

Attorneys

Ronald DeWitt Vines
Michael Hugh McGinleyDechert LLP, Petitioner
Michael Hugh McGinleyDechert LLP, Petitioner
United States
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent