UNITED STATES v. SOKALSKY (2020)

OPINION *

Lee Sokalsky pleaded guilty to four counts of bank robbery by force, violence or intimidation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). The presentence investigation report classified Sokalsky as a career offender under United States Sentencing Guideline (U.S.S.G.) § 4B1.1. Sokalsky objected to the career offender classification, arguing that the § 2113(a) offense did not constitute a crime of violence as defined in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). The District Court disagreed and sentenced Sokalsky to 151 months of incarceration on each count to run concurrently. This timely appeal followed.¹ We will affirm.

The only issue on appeal is whether bank robbery by intimidation under § 2113(a) categorically constitutes a crime of violence. We exercise plenary review of a district court’s decision that a conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). United States v. Wilson, 880 F.3d 80, 83 (3d Cir. 2018).

Sokalsky acknowledges that in Wilson, we “join[ed] our sister circuits in holding that bank robbery by intimidation, as set forth in [18 U.S.C.] § 2113(a), categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under [U.S.S.G.] § 4B1.2(a)’s ‘elements’ clause.” Id. at 88. Nonetheless, he asserts that Wilson “was wrongly decided.” Appellant’s Br. 12. Wilson is binding on this panel. See 3d Cir. I.O.P. 9.1 (2018). Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court did not err by applying § 4B1.1’s career-offender enhancement in this case. We will affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

SMITH, Chief Judge.