UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4178
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYMOND EDWARD GILL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:13-cr-00577-RDB-1)
Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
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),
and (f) (2012), and one count of brandishing a firearm in
furtherance of a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
924(c) (2012). 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. Based
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
Johnson. We affirm.
We review both issues for plain error only because Gill
raises the issues for the first time on appeal. United States
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
141 (4th Cir. 2016). In McNeal, we held that taking by
intimidation under § 2113(a) involves the threat to use physical
force and thus armed bank robbery is a crime of violence
2
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). Id. at 153. Thus,
because we find both of Gill’s arguments are foreclosed by
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
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3