May 16, 2017
from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 12-cr-00398 -
Edmond E. Chang, Judge.
Easterbrook, Sykes, and Hamilton, Circuit Judges.
Hamilton, Circuit Judge.
issue in this appeal is whether federal bank robbery by
intimidation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) is a
crime of violence for purposes of the pre-2016 federal
Sentencing Guideline provision for career offenders in
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). We have held that federal bank
robbery by intimidation satisfies the elements clause of the
statutory definition of a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c). United States v. Williams, __F.3d__,
No. 16-3373 (7th Cir. July 27, 2017); United States v.
Armour, 840 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2016). In this appeal, we
hold that federal bank robbery by intimidation is also a
crime of violence for the purposes of applying the pre-2016
versions of the career offender Guideline and affirm the
decision of the district court.
plaintiff Jerry Campbell is 69 years old. He has been
diagnosed with schizoaffective and post-traumatic stress
disorders and has a long history of mental health treatment.
Unfortunately, Campbell also has a long and rather
unsuccessful history of committing robberies.
2012, Campbell was 64 years old and residing in the Salvation
Army Residential Reentry Center in Chicago, having been
released to the halfway house to complete his sentence for a
2005 conviction for entering a bank with intent to commit
bank robbery. He was given a pass to Cook County Hospital for
a psychological examination on May 24, 2012, and he left the
hospital without a doctor's authorization on May 27,
2012. Later that day, he entered a grocery store that had a
branch bank inside. He withdrew $35, which was the balance of
his checking account. He then walked through the grocery
portion of the store, gathering a pair of sunglasses, a
turquoise and purple squirt gun with an orange tip, and a
bottle of tequila. He entered the restroom, turned his shirt
inside out, put on the sunglasses, and drank the liquor. He
then left the restroom and approached the bank tellers at the
bank. Pointing the squirt gun, he said, "Let's make
this easy, " and "Hey big boy, I want both drawers
from you." The tellers filled his shopping bag with
$1495 in currency.
left the store but was promptly arrested in the parking lot.
He had some of the money on his person. The Chicago police
officers who caught him found more cash under a car in the
parking lot. He was indicted on a single count of bank
robbery by intimidation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
after the indictment, Campbell was found mentally incompetent
by the district court and hospitalized for two years to
restore competency. Then, in July 2015, with competency
restored, Campbell entered a plea agreement in which he
agreed to plead guilty to bank robbery by intimidation and
agreed that he would be a career offender under U.S.S.G.
§ 4Bl.l(a) because bank robbery by intimidation is a
crime of violence. In anticipation of sentencing, however,
his lawyer filed a sentencing memorandum arguing that the
career offender Guideline should not apply because the crime
of violence definition in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1)
requires specific intent and bank robbery by intimidation is
a general intent offense. The district court disagreed,
finding that bank robbery by intimidation is a crime of
violence under the elements clause of § 4B1.2(a) even
though it is also a crime of general intent. The judge
calculated the guideline range to be 151-188 months. Without
the career offender designation, the sentencing range would
have been 57-71 months. Judge Chang carefully considered the
mental health and age of Campbell and imposed a
below-guideline sentence of 100 months in prison.
now appeals the district court decision to treat him as a
career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines. He argues
that bank robbery by intimidation does not require the
intentional mens rea necessary for a crime of
violence to count under the elements clause toward
application of the career offender Guideline. We review
de novo the district court's decision as to
whether bank robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under
§ 4B1.2(a)(1). United States v. Edwards, 836
F.3d 831, 834 (7th Cir. 2016). For the following reasons, we
reaffirm our prior holdings that bank robbery by intimidation
is a crime of violence, so we affirm the district court's
application of the career offender Guideline.
elements clause of § 4B1.2(a)(1) reads:
(a) The term "crime of violence" means any offense
under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a
term exceeding one year, that-
(1) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened
use of physical force against the person of another ...
determine if an offense is a crime of violence under the
elements clause, we apply the categorical approach.
Edwards, 836 F.3d at 833; United States v.
Woods,576 F.3d 400, 403-04 (7th Cir. 2009); see
generally Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S.__, __,
133 S.Ct. 2276, 2283 (2013) (describing categorical
approach). Courts look only to the statutory elements of the
crime, without paying attention to the specific facts of the
case, such as Campbell's mental health or his use of a
colorful plastic squirt gun (however relevant those
circumstances were for sentencing). Descamps, 570
U.S. at__, 133 S.Ct. at 2283, citing Taylor v. United