US v. Monte Straite

Circuit 4May 18, 2026

Split Score

SplitScore: 62/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Affirmed

The Fourth Circuit held that attempted armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) categorically qualifies as a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3) because the statute requires an assault or life-jeopardizing act committed with a dangerous weapon. Accordingly, it affirmed Monte Emmanuel Straite’s § 924(c) conviction that rested on his § 2113(d) offense.

View Full Opinion Document (PDF)

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

Whether attempted bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) necessarily involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force so that it is categorically a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A).

Circuit Positions

Circuit 3Circuit 5Circuit 7Circuit 8Circuit 11

§ 2113(a) attempted bank robbery does require force/ intimidation and is a crime of violence under § 924(c).

Circuit 4(this circuit)

§ 2113(a) attempted bank robbery does not necessarily require force/ intimidation and is not a categorical crime of violence under § 924(c).

Conflict Summary

The Fourth Circuit’s precedent (McFadden) holds that § 2113(a) attempted bank robbery can be proven by intent plus a substantial step without any force or intimidation, so it is not a categorical crime of violence. The Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits read the statutory phrase “by force and violence, or by intimidation” as modifying both the completed and attempted forms of the offense, concluding that force is always required and the offense therefore qualifies as a crime of violence.

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Monte Emmanuel Straite
Appellee:United States of America

Legal Counsel

Appellant:Mark A. Jones, Bell, Davis & Pitt, P.A., Winston-Salem, NC
Appellee:Julie Carol Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney; on brief: Clifton T. Barrett, United States Attorney; Joanna G. McFadden, Assistant United States Attorney