BAGWELL v. UNITED STATES (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Charles Benton Bagwell appeals from the district court’s judgments denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm.

In both appeals, Bagwell contends that his conviction for armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), is not a crime of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3). This argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Watson, 881 F.3d 782, 784 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 203, 202 L.Ed.2d 139 (2018) (federal armed bank robbery by force and violence or by intimidation is categorically a crime of violence under the force clause of section 924(c)(3)). Moreover, contrary to Bagwell’s contention, Watson is not “clearly irreconcilable” with Stokeling v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 544, 202 L.Ed.2d 512 (2019). See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach the parties’ remaining arguments.

AFFIRMED.