USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 1 of 70
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED
`
`BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
`_________________________
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
`_________________________
`
`Nos. 16-3009, 16-3072, 21-3041, 23-3031, 24-3017 (consolidated)
`_________________________
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`BRYAN BURWELL, and
`AARON PERKINS,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Appellee,
`
`Appellants.
`
`_________________________
`
`APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`_________________________
`
`
`
`Cr. No. 04-355 (CKK)
`
`MATTHEW M. GRAVES
`United States Attorney
`
`CHRISELLEN R. KOLB
`ELIZABETH H. DANELLO
`* TIMOTHY R. CAHILL
`D.C. Bar #1032630
`Assistant United States Attorneys
`* Counsel for Oral Argument
`601 D Street, NW, Room 6.232
`Washington, D.C. 20530
`Timothy.Cahill@usdoj.gov
`(202) 252-6829
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED
`
`BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
`_________________________
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
`_________________________
`
`Nos. 16-3009, 16-3072, 21-3041, 23-3031, 24-3017 (consolidated)
`_________________________
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`BRYAN BURWELL, and
`AARON PERKINS,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Appellee,
`
`Appellants.
`
`_________________________
`
`APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`_________________________
`
`
`
`Cr. No. 04-355 (CKK)
`
`MATTHEW M. GRAVES
`United States Attorney
`
`CHRISELLEN R. KOLB
`ELIZABETH H. DANELLO
`* TIMOTHY R. CAHILL
`D.C. Bar #1032630
`Assistant United States Attorneys
`* Counsel for Oral Argument
`601 D Street, NW, Room 6.232
`Washington, D.C. 20530
`Timothy.Cahill@usdoj.gov
`(202) 252-6829
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 2 of 70
`
`CERTIFICATE OF PARTIES,
`RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES
`Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), appellee states as follows:
`
`Parties and Amici
`The parties to these appeals are appellant Bryan Burwell (16-3009,
`
`
`
`
`
`16-3072, 21-3041, 24-3017), appellant Aaron Perkins (23-3031), and
`
`appellee, the United States of America. There are no amici.
`
`Rulings Under Review
`Burwell appeals from orders issued by the Honorable Colleen
`
`
`
`Kollar-Kotelly on January 15, 2015 (Burwell Appendix (BA.) 169-70),
`
`February 16, 2016 (BA.230-31), June 10, 2021 (BA.325), and February 7,
`
`2024 (BA.415), denying his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based
`
`upon (1) Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), and (2) Rosemond
`
`v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014). Perkins appeals from Judge Kollar-
`
`Kotelly’s order issued on February 7, 2023 (Perkins Appendix (PA.) 341),
`
`denying his § 2255 claim based upon Johnson. Both appellants seek to
`
`vacate their convictions for using or carrying a firearm during a crime of
`
`violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 3 of 70
`
`Related Cases
`This Court previously affirmed both appellants’ convictions on
`
`
`
`direct appeal in United States v. Burwell, 642 F.3d 1062 (D.C. Cir. 2011),
`
`opinion reinstated and aff’d, 690 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (en banc).
`
`
`
`In No. 15-3022, Burwell appealed the district court’s partial denial
`
`of his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and this Court dismissed the
`
`matter for lack of jurisdiction as an appeal from a non-final order.
`
`
`
`In No. 15-3028, Perkins appealed the denial of his first § 2255
`
`motion, and this Court denied his motion for a certificate of appealability.
`
`
`
`In No. 16-3027, Perkins petitioned for leave to file a second or
`
`successive § 2255 motion to pursue a claim based upon Johnson v. United
`
`States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), which this Court granted. The district court’s
`
`denial of that second § 2255 motion is the subject of Perkins’s appeal in
`
`No. 23-3031.
`
`
`
`In No. 21-3007, Perkins appealed the district court’s denial of his
`
`motion for compassionate release, and this Court affirmed.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 4 of 70
`
`STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
`Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(5), appellee states that all
`
`
`
`pertinent statutes and regulations are contained in the Addendum to the
`
`Brief for Appellant Perkins.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 5 of 70
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................ 1
`Overview of Trial Evidence .................................................................. 4
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .......................................................... 6
`ARGUMENT .............................................................................. 7
`I. Section 2113(a) Is Divisible Between Bank Robbery and
`Bank Extortion. .............................................................................. 7
`A. Additional Background........................................................... 7
`B. Standard of Review and Legal Principles ........................... 12
`1. Crimes of Violence Under § 924(c) ............................... 12
`2. The Historical Distinctions Between Robbery and
`Extortion ......................................................................... 14
`3. 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) ........................................................ 16
`C. Discussion .............................................................................. 18
`II. Burwell Cannot Overcome Procedural Default or,
`Alternatively, Satisfy Plain-Error Review
`for His
`Unpreserved Rosemond Claim. .................................................. 27
`A. Additional Background......................................................... 27
`1. Relevant Trial Evidence ................................................ 27
`2. Verdict and Appeal ........................................................ 31
`3. Post-Conviction Rosemond Claims ............................... 34
`B. Standard of Review and Legal Principles ........................... 38
`1. § 2255 Claims and Procedural Default ......................... 38
`2. Aiding and Abetting ...................................................... 40
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 6 of 70
`
`C. Discussion .............................................................................. 42
`1. The Government Has Not Waived the § 2255
`Procedural Bar. .............................................................. 43
`2. Burwell Cannot Demonstrate Cause to Overcome
`Procedural Default......................................................... 46
`3. Burwell Cannot Demonstrate Actual Prejudice to
`Overcome Procedural Default, or, Alternatively, to
`Satisfy Plain-Error Review. .......................................... 48
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................... 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 7 of 70
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES*
`
`Cases
`
`* Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) ............................. 38, 46, 47
`
`Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 1998) .................................. 44
`
`Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) ............................................ 48
`
`Chance v. United States, 2017 WL 11049324
`
`(S.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2017) ......................................................................... 19
`
`Clark v. United States, 680 Fed. Appx. 470 (7th Cir. 2017) ..................... 52
`
`* Davis v. Cross, 863 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2017) ............................................. 53
`
`Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) ...................................... 13
`
`Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 (1982) ..................................................... 46, 47
`
`Farmer v. United States, 867 F.3d 837 (7th Cir. 2017) .............................. 51
`
`Greer v. United States, 593 U.S. 503 (2021) ............................................... 40
`
`In re Jones, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23578 (11th Cir. July 27, 2016) ......... 19
`
`Johnson (Joyce) v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) ........................ 39, 40
`
`Johnson (Samuel) v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) ............. 3, 6, 8, 13
`
`Kaczmarek v. Rednour, 627 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 2010) ............................. 44
`
`King v. Kemna, 266 F.3d 816 (8th Cir. 2001) .......................................... 45
`
`
`* Authorities upon which we chiefly rely are marked with asterisks.
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 8 of 70
`
`Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) ...................................... 48
`
`Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003) .................................. 38, 43
`
`Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) .............................. 13, 14, 20
`
`McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991) ..................................................... 39
`
`McDuffie v. United States, 2017 WL 6606916 (11th Cir. Oct. 31, 2017) ... 47
`
`Montana v. Cross, 829 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2016) .................................. 46, 47
`
`Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986)...................................................... 38
`
`New York Rehab. Care Mgmt. v. N.L.R.B., 506 F.3d 1070
`
`(D.C. Cir. 2007) ....................................................................................... 55
`
`* Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. 282 (2016) .......................... 15, 16, 20, 21
`
`Rodriguez v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 645 Fed. Appx. 110
`
`(3d Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................... 52
`
`* Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014) ....... 3, 7, 34, 40-42, 48, 52
`
`Scheidler v. Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc., 537 U.S. 393 (2003) ..... 14, 15, 22
`
`Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) ......................................................... 42
`
`Sekhar v. United States, 570 U.S. 729 (2013) .......................................... 14
`
`Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527 (1986)....................................................... 46
`
`Trest v. Cain, 522 U.S. 87 (1997) ................................................................ 39
`
`United States v. Bane, 948 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2020) ............................ 46
`
`United States v. Brooks, 2023 WL 3939606 (2d Cir. June 12, 2023) ......... 39
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 9 of 70
`
`United States v. Burwell, 642 F.3d 1062
`
` (D.C. Cir. 2011) ......................................................3, 4, 27, 33, 43, 47, 49
`
`United States v. Burwell, 690 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir. 2012) .. 3, 26, 34, 49, 55
`
`United States v. Cardena, 842 F.3d 959 (7th Cir. 2016) .......................... 51
`
`United States v. Carr, 946 F.3d 598 (D.C. Cir. 2020) ............... 6, 18, 23, 25
`
`United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019) ............................................ 12
`
`United States v. DeLuna, 10 F.3d 1529 (10th Cir. 1993) .................. 55, 56
`
`* United States v. Eldridge, 2 F.4th 27 (2d Cir. 2021) .......................... 49, 50
`
`United States v. Evans, 924 F.3d 21 (2d Cir. 2019) ................................... 19
`
`United States v. Falu, 776 F.2d 46 (2d Cir. 1985) ................................... 56
`
`United States v. Fernandez, 559 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2009) ......................... 40
`
`United States v. Fernandez-Jorge, 894 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2018) ........ 54, 55
`
`United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 (1982) ................................ 38, 39, 48
`
`United States v. Furlow, 928 F.3d 311 (4th Cir. 2019) .............................. 26
`
`United States v. Gewin, 759 F.3d 72 (D.C. Cir. 2014). ......................... 40, 51
`
`United States v. Gooch, 850 F.3d 285 (6th Cir. 2017) ....................... 23, 24
`
`United States v. Goodridge, 392 F. Supp. 3d 159 (D. Mass. 2019) ......... 19
`
`United States v. Hall, 370 F.3d 1204 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ............................ 55
`
`* United States v. Harris, 916 F.3d 948 (11th Cir. 2019) .............. 15, 16, 21
`
`United States v. Hatley, 61 F.4th 536 (7th Cir. 2023) ............................. 23
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 10 of 70
`
`United States v. Henry, 797 F.3d 371 (6th Cir. 2015) ......................... 53, 54
`
`United States v. Hicks, 911 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2018) ............................ 38
`
`United States v. Kaczynski, 239 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2001)..................... 44
`
`* United States v. Khatallah, 41 F.4th 608 (D.C. Cir. 2022)................. 25, 26
`
`* United States v. King, 965 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2020) ..................17, 19-22, 24
`
`United States v. Lawson, 810 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir. 2016) .......................... 53
`
`United States v. Lojian, 976 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir. 1992) ........................... 56
`
`United States v. Lucero, 860 Fed. Appx. 589 (10th Cir. 2021) ................ 17
`
`United States v. Morrow, 2005 WL 1389256 (D.D.C. June 13, 2005) ...... 5
`
`United States v. Nguyen, 155 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir. 1998) ....................... 56
`
`United States v. O’Connor, 874 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2017) .................... 23
`
`United States v. Odum, 65 F.4th 714 (4th Cir. 2023) ............................... 50
`
`United States v. Perkins, 161 F.3d 66 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ........................ 39, 45
`
`United States v. Prado, 815 F.3d 83 (2nd Cir. 2016) .......................... 53, 54
`
`United States v. Richardson, 793 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2015) ................ 50, 52
`
`United States v. Roof, 10 F.4th 314 (4th Cir. 2021) ................................... 21
`
`United States v. Said, 26 F.4th 653 (4th Cir. 2022) ................................... 39
`
`United States v. Sigalow, 812 F.2d 783 (2d Cir. 1987)............................ 56
`
`United States v. Smith, 104 F.4th 314 (D.C. Cir. 2024) .................... 12, 17
`
`ix
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 11 of 70
`
`United States v. Vidrine, 2017 WL 3822651
`
` (E.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2017).................................................................. 18, 19
`
`United States v. Watson, 881 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 2018) .............................. 19
`
`United States v. Zhou, 428 F.3d 361 (2d. Cir. 2005) ............................... 16
`
`* Vanwinkle v. United States, 645 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2011)...................... 45
`
`Other Authorities
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2 ........................................................................................... 2, 40
`
`18 U.S.C. § 371 ............................................................................................. 2
`
`18 U.S.C. § 924(c) .............................. 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 32-34, 37, 41-43, 46, 48
`
`18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) ................................................................ 2, 6, 12, 18
`
`18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii)..................................................... 2, 3, 33, 34, 55
`
`18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) ....................................................................... 12, 13
`
`18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) ............................................................................. 12
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1363 ......................................................................................... 25
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1951 ......................................................................................... 17
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1951(b) ..................................................................................... 23
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1) ..................................................................... 21, 22, 24
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2) .............................................................. 15, 18, 21, 24
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) ....................................................................................... 1
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2113 ................................................................................... 10, 22
`
`x
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 12 of 70
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) .................................... 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16-20, 22-26
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) ......................................................................... 2, 3, 8, 17
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2255 ..................................... 3, 7, 8-10, 34-36, 38, 43-45, 47, 51
`
`4 Commissioners of the Code, Proposed Penal Code of the State
` of New York § 613 (1865) ....................................................................... 15
`
`E. Coke, The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England
`
`(1648) ....................................................................................................... 14
`
`H.R. Rep. 99-797 ............................................................................. 17, 18, 23
`
`N.Y. Penal Law § 850 (1909) ..................................................................... 15
`
`Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal Law § 20.4 ................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 13 of 70
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED
`I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) is divisible between bank robbery
`
`and bank extortion, where the statutory text, legislative history, and
`
`longstanding historical distinctions between robbery and extortion all
`
`indicate that robbery and extortion are alternative elements, not merely
`
`different means, within that statute.
`
`II. Whether Burwell can overcome his procedural default, or,
`
`alternatively, satisfy plain-error review, for his unpreserved claim based
`
`upon Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014), where he cannot
`
`show cause for failing to raise the claim on direct appeal, and he cannot
`
`show a reasonable probability that he would have been acquitted of the
`
`charge under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) if the jury had been properly instructed
`
`on aiding-and-abetting liability.
`
`
`
`xii
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 14 of 70
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
`_________________________
`
`Nos. 16-3009, 16-3072, 21-3041, 23-3031, 24-3017 (consolidated)
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Appellee,
`
`Appellants.
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`BRYAN BURWELL, and
`AARON PERKINS,
`
`
`_________________________
`
`APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`_________________________
`
`BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
`_________________________
`
`COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE
`In a 20-count superseding indictment, issued on February 15, 2005,
`
`
`
`Burwell, Perkins, and four co-defendants were charged with offenses
`
`arising from a series of armed bank robberies (Burwell Appendix (BA.) 75-
`
`107). Burwell was charged with: (1) conspiracy to participate in a
`
`Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO conspiracy), in
`
`violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); (2) conspiracy to commit armed bank
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 15 of 70
`
`robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; (3) armed bank robbery of an
`
`Industrial Bank branch on June 12, 2004, and aiding and abetting, in
`
`violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d), and 2; and (4) using a firearm during
`
`a crime of violence and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 924(c)(1)(A), (B), and 2 (id. at 75-90, 98-99). Perkins was charged with:
`
`(1) RICO conspiracy, (2) conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery,
`
`(3) armed bank robbery of a SunTrust Bank branch on June 29, 2004, and
`
`aiding and abetting, and (4) using a firearm during a crime of violence and
`
`aiding and abetting (id. at 75-90, 103-04).
`
`
`
`On July 15, 2005, after a jury trial before the Honorable Colleen
`
`Kollar-Kotelly, Burwell and Perkins were found guilty on all charged
`
`offenses (BA.148-50, Perkins Appendix (PA.) 136-38). On April 28, 2006,
`
`the district court sentenced Burwell to concurrent terms totaling 135
`
`months’ incarceration for RICO conspiracy, armed bank robbery
`
`conspiracy, and armed bank robbery, and a consecutive term of 360
`
`months for his § 924(c) conviction (BA.155-58). On May 2, 2006, the court
`
`sentenced Perkins to consecutive terms of 57 months’ incarceration for
`
`RICO conspiracy, armed bank robbery conspiracy, and armed bank
`
`robbery, and a consecutive term of 360 months for his § 924(c) conviction
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 16 of 70
`
`(PA.148-51). The 360-month sentence imposed for each appellant’s
`
`§ 924(c) conviction is the statutory minimum where the offense involved
`
`a machinegun. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii).
`
`
`
`On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the convictions of Burwell,
`
`Perkins, and their four co-defendants. See United States v. Burwell, 642
`
`F.3d 1062 (D.C. Cir. 2011), opinion reinstated and aff’d, 690 F.3d 500
`
`(D.C. Cir. 2012) (en banc). As explained in more detail infra, both Burwell
`
`and Perkins filed post-conviction motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
`
`on numerous grounds. Only two of those claims are at issue in these
`
`consolidated appeals. First, Burwell and Perkins each challenged their
`
`§ 924(c) convictions based upon (Samuel) Johnson v. United States, 576
`
`U.S. 591 (2015), claiming that the predicate offense — armed bank robbery
`
`in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d) — no longer qualified as a crime of
`
`violence. Second, Burwell claimed that his § 924(c) conviction should be
`
`vacated because the district court’s jury instructions on aiding and
`
`abetting for that offense were erroneous in light of Rosemond v. United
`
`States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014).
`
`
`
`The district court denied both appellants’ Johnson claims, and
`
`Burwell and Perkins timely appealed. On August 10, 2023, this Court
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 17 of 70
`
`granted Perkins a limited certificate of appealability (COA) for his
`
`Johnson claim, and on February 7, 2024, the district court granted
`
`Burwell a COA on the same issue. The district court denied Burwell’s
`
`Rosemond claim, and Burwell timely appealed. On May 1, 2024, this
`
`Court granted Burwell a COA on his Rosemond claim.
`
`Overview of Trial Evidence
`The evidence at trial showed that Burwell and Perkins were part of
`
`
`
`a “ring that committed armed bank robberies” with “old-school tactics,”
`
`“includ[ing] subduing innocent bystanders with gratuitous gunplay,
`
`pistol whipping a victim, and peppering a pursuing police car with
`
`bullets.” Burwell, 642 F.3d at 1064-65. The crew developed a “signature
`
`style” of “w[earing] bullet-proof vests, masks, and gloves, and rel[ying] on
`
`superior fire power, preferring to use military weapons like AK-47s
`
`instead of handguns because they surmised the metropolitan police
`
`‘wouldn’t respond’ when [they] ‘robb[ed] banks with assault weapons.’”
`
`Id. The crew used stolen vehicles to travel to the targeted banks and
`
`“strategically placed” other stolen vehicles “along the get-away-route[s],”
`
`which they later abandoned and “torch[ed] . . . in an attempt to destroy
`
`any forensic evidence[.]” Id.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 18 of 70
`
`
`
`Neither Burwell nor Perkins participated in the earliest bank
`
`robberies. In May 2004, Burwell told the crew’s leaders that he “wanted
`
`to start robbing banks with [them],” and they agreed (Supplemental
`
`Appendix (SA.) 20-21). On May 27, 2004, Burwell participated in an
`
`armed bank robbery in Maryland, during which he carried an AK-47 that
`
`he used to twice strike a bank teller in the back of the head (SA.19-33).
`
`On June 12, 2004, Burwell participated in an armed bank robbery in
`
`Washington, D.C., during which he again carried an AK-47 (SA.44-53).
`
`
`
`Perkins had a long relationship with the crew’s leaders, and he
`
`allowed them to use his apartment to divvy up stolen cash and to stash
`
`weapons, body armor, clothing, and disguises. See United States v.
`
`Morrow, 2005 WL 1389256, at *9-*10 (D.D.C. June 13, 2005). After
`
`Perkins saw the proceeds from an earlier robbery, he decided to
`
`participate in an armed robbery of a bank in Washington, D.C., on June
`
`29, 2004. See id. Perkins “act[ed] as a lookout, armed with a fully
`
`automatic AK-47 assault weapon, as [two of his co-conspirators] robbed
`
`the bank’s tellers at gunpoint.” Id. at *10.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 19 of 70
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`Appellants’ claims pursuant to (Samuel) Johnson v. United States,
`
`
`
`576 U.S. 591 (2015), fail because appellants were convicted of bank
`
`robbery, not bank extortion, and this Court has previously held that bank
`
`robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) is a crime of violence for
`
`purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). See United States v. Carr, 946 F.3d
`
`598 (D.C. Cir. 2020). As every federal court of appeals to have addressed
`
`the issue has found, § 2113(a) is divisible between the separate offenses of
`
`bank robbery and bank extortion. This conclusion is supported by the
`
`statutory text, which tracks the longstanding historical distinctions
`
`between the offenses of robbery (taking property from the person or
`
`presence of another against the victim’s will) and extortion (obtaining
`
`property with the victim’s consent). It is also supported by the legislative
`
`history of § 2113(a), which shows that Congress intended the definition of
`
`“extortion” in the statute to match the definition expressly set forth in the
`
`analogous Hobbs Act. Courts have consistently found the Hobbs Act to be
`
`divisible between robbery and extortion, and there is no basis to afford
`
`different treatment to extortion in § 2113(a).
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 20 of 70
`
`
`
`Burwell failed to challenge the district court’s jury instructions on
`
`aiding-and-abetting liability for his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) charge on direct
`
`appeal, and he cannot demonstrate cause and actual prejudice to overcome
`
`the procedural default of his claim based upon Rosemond v. United States,
`
`572 U.S. 65 (2014). The government asserted the procedural bar in its first
`
`filings that addressed Burwell’s Rosemond claim in the district court and
`
`this Court, and the application of that bar is thus neither waived nor
`
`forfeited. Alternatively, Burwell cannot satisfy plain-error review because,
`
`based on the evidence at trial, he cannot show a reasonable probability
`
`that he would have been acquitted of his § 924(c) charge if the jury had
`
`been properly instructed on aiding-and-abetting liability.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`Section 2113(a) Is Divisible Between Bank
`Robbery and Bank Extortion.
`A. Additional Background
`On February 21, 2014, Burwell filed a pro se motion pursuant to 28
`
`
`
`U.S.C. § 2255, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel on multiple
`
`grounds (Docket Entry from district court case No. 04-cr-355 (DE) 822). On
`
`January 15, 2015, and March 12, 2015, the district court issued rulings
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 21 of 70
`
`denying some, but not all, of Burwell’s § 2255 claims (BA.171-220; DE 873).
`
`On February 12, 2016, Burwell filed a supplement to his § 2255 motion,
`
`asserting that his § 924(c) conviction must be vacated because the predicate
`
`offense — armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d) — no
`
`longer qualified as a crime of violence in light of (Samuel) Johnson v. United
`
`States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (BA.221-29). On February 16, 2016, the district
`
`court denied Burwell’s § 2255 motion in its entirety, including his Johnson
`
`claim (BA.267-70). The court declined to issue a COA, and Burwell timely
`
`appealed (BA.270-71) (No. 16-3009).
`
`
`
`After the district court ordered further briefing on Burwell’s pro se
`
`motion for reconsideration (BA.272-78; DE 954), the proceedings in this
`
`Court were held in abeyance. See Order, No. 16-3009 (July 18, 2016).
`
`Meanwhile, on May 17, 2016, the government filed an opposition to
`
`Burwell’s motion for reconsideration in district court, arguing that his
`
`Johnson claim was procedurally defaulted and meritless (BA.287-90).
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 22 of 70
`
`
`
`On June 23, 2016, this Court granted Perkins’s petition to file a
`
`second or successive § 2255 motion based upon Johnson (PA.184).1
`
`Perkins’s petition was entered on the district court docket as an “abridged”
`
`§ 2255 motion for purposes of being deemed timely filed (DE 962).
`
`Additional briefing on Burwell’s and Perkins’s Johnson claims was
`
`deferred under the district court’s Johnson Standing Orders.2
`
`
`
`On March 19, 2021, Perkins filed a pro se § 2255 motion challenging
`
`his § 924(c) conviction based upon Johnson (PA.185-227). On November
`
`30, 2021, Perkins filed a supplemental § 2255 motion through counsel
`
`(PA.228-66), setting forth additional arguments in support of his Johnson
`
`claim, including that his § 924(c) predicate offense under 18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 2113(a) was indivisible and could be committed by “extortion” (PA.241).
`
`
`1 Perkins’s first § 2255 motion had been denied by the district court on
`March 19, 2015 (PA.183), and both the district court (PA.183) and this
`Court (No. 15-3028) declined to issue a COA.
`2 On June 24, 2016, the Office of the Federal Public Defender (FPD) filed
`an emergency motion in this Court on behalf of Burwell, seeking
`authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion based upon
`Johnson. See Petition, No. 16-3072 (June 24, 2016). In a subsequent
`filing, FPD acknowledged that Burwell had already filed a Johnson claim
`in this case and explained that its motion was filed “in an abundance of
`caution.” Response, No. 16-3072 (June 25, 2016) at 1. The district court
`and this Court later granted FPD’s motions to withdraw as counsel for
`Burwell (BA.341; Order, No. 16-3072 (May 1, 2024)).
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 23 of 70
`
`On December 31, 2021, Burwell — now represented by counsel on his
`
`Johnson claim (BA.341) — filed a supplemental § 2255 motion that was
`
`nearly identical to Perkins’s latest filing (BA.342-84).3 On April 27, 2022,
`
`and May 5, 2022, the government filed oppositions to both supplemental
`
`motions, arguing that appellants’ Johnson claims were procedurally
`
`barred and meritless (PA.267-95; DE 1096). On June 6, 2022, Perkins and
`
`Burwell filed replies (PA.296-319; DE 1103).
`
`
`
`On February 7, 2023, the district court denied Perkins’s Johnson
`
`claim and declined to issue a COA (PA.341). The court rejected the
`
`government’s arguments as to procedural default (PA.327-30),4 but it
`
`
`3 Unlike Perkins, Burwell had not received leave from this Court to file a
`second or successive § 2255 motion. Burwell’s filing specified that it was
`intended to “supplement[ ] his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition(s)”
`(BA.342). At that time, Burwell’s appeal of the denial of his initial
`Johnson claim was being held in abeyance in this Court, pending the
`district court’s resolution of his motion for reconsideration. See Order,
`No. 16-3009 (July 18, 2016). This Court was also holding in abeyance
`FPD’s petition on Burwell’s behalf to file a second or successive § 2255
`motion based upon Johnson. See Order, No. 16-3072 (July 28, 2016).
`4 As we acknowledged below (PA.277 n.5; DE 1096 at 11 n.6), the “actual
`innocence” exception to procedural default would apply if the Court
`determines that appellants’ Johnson claims are valid, since the predicate
`§ 2113 convictions would no longer qualify as “crimes of violence.” For
`purposes of this appeal, therefore, we do not rely on procedural default
`with respect to appellants’ Johnson claims. As discussed in Section II.C,
`(continued . . . )
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #24-3017 Document #2066565 Filed: 07/25/2024 Page 24 of 70
`
`concluded, consistent with every federal court of appeals that has
`
`addressed the issue, that § 2113(a) is divisible between the separate
`
`offenses of “bank robbery” and “bank extortion” (PA.331-37). The court
`
`further found, applying the modified categorical approach, that Perkins
`
`was charged with and convicted of bank robbery by force and violence,
`
`not bank extortion (PA.337).
`
`
`
`Perkins timely appealed (PA.342) and moved for a COA in this
`
`Court. See Motion, No. 23-3031 (Apr. 13, 2023). On August 10, 2023, this
`
`Court granted Perkins a limited COA “with respect to [his] contention
`
`that 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) is indivisible as to extortion such that his
`
`conviction under that statute does not qualify as a ‘crime of violence’ for
`
`purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).” See Order, No. 23-3031 (Aug. 10, 2023).
`
`
`
`On January 24, 2024, Burwell moved for an expedited ruling on his
`
`pending Johnson motion (BA.385-91). On February 7, 2024, the district
`
`court denied Burwell’s motion to reconsider his Johnson claim on the same
`
`bases that it relied upon to deny Perkins’s claim (BA.392-414). As with
`
`
`however, the same is not true for Burwell’s Rosemond claim, which
`challenges the district court’s jury instructions and does not implicate the
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
