Raymond Gill v. US
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to amend/correct [999709920-2]. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00577-RDB-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . [15-4178]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
RAYMOND EDWARD GILL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
July 28, 2016
August 2, 2016
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Murtha, MURTHA, PSORAS & LANASA LLC, Lutherville,
Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Paul E. Budlow, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Raymond Edward Gill was convicted by a jury of one count of
armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d),
furtherance of a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
Gill was sentenced to 300 months for the bank
robbery and 180 months consecutive on the brandishing count, for
a total sentence of 480 months of imprisonment.
On appeal Gill
asserts that bank robbery may be accomplished by intimidation
only and thus argues that it is not a crime of violence.
on this premise, Gill raises two issues:
(1) whether his §
924(c) conviction must be reversed because federal bank robbery
is not a crime of violence in the wake of Johnson v. United
States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015); and (2) whether the district
court erred in sentencing him as a career offender because armed
bank robbery no longer constitutes a crime of violence after
We review both issues for plain error only because Gill
raises the issues for the first time on appeal.
v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993).
Both issues fail, however,
based on our recent opinion in United States v. McNeal, 818 F.3d
intimidation under § 2113(a) involves the threat to use physical
Pg: 3 of 3
McNeal, we affirm his convictions and sentence.
We deny Gill’s
pro se motion to amend and dispense with oral argument as the
appeal facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before this Court and argument would not aid the
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?