Korb, Taylor Martin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• emphasizing that the defendant was charged with armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), not unarmed bank robbery under § 2113(a), and holding that “‘assault[ing]’ someone or putting a life in ‘jeopardy . . . by the use of a dangerous weapon’” under § 2113(d
• explaining pre-Davis that because a crime is a “crime of violence” if it meets either the elements clause or the residual clause of § 924(c)(3), in order to reach the petitioner’s residual-clause argument, the court would need to agree with him that § 2113(d
• “[W]e will review the record of Johnson’s trial to determine whether the District Court committed plain error when it failed” to give jury instructions “on an element listed in the indictment.”
• § 2113(d) qualifies as a crime of violence because “‘assaulting’ someone or putting a life in ‘jeopardy by the use of a dangerous weapon,’ meets the elements clause . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).