18 U.S.C. § 2111
Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction
Whoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes or attempts to take from the person or presence of another anything of value, shall be imprisoned not more than fifteen years.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 174
cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999).
Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999). “As the Court acknowledges, however, one of those statutes, 18 U. S. C. § 2111 , does not refer to "serious bodily injury" or "death" "result[ing]" at all.”
United States v. Mario Fultz, 923 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2019). “§ 924 (c)(1) on the ground that his underlying offense, Robbery on a Government Reservation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2111 , was a “crime of violence” under 18 U.”
Gary Harris v. United States, 19 F.4th 863 (6th Cir. 2021). “Because the 18 U.S.C. § 2111 crime of aiding and abetting attempted robbery necessarily constitutes a crime of violence under the elements clause of 18 U.”
United States v. Vernon Snype, Marisa Hicks, 441 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2006). “Because these state statutory elements parallel those required to establish robbery under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2111 , 2113(a), and 2118(a), there can be no question that New York State convictions for first and second degree robbery by definition qualify as serious violent felonies…”
United States v. Male Juv. (95-Cr-1074), 121 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1997). “Because defendant was under the age of eighteen during the commission of the crime, the government proceeded against defendant under the Juvenile Delinquency Act, 18 U.”
United States v. Willie Johnson, 915 F.3d 223 (4th Cir. 2019). “(describing robbery by reference to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2111 , 2113, 2118 ); see also United States v.”
United States v. Mitchell, 502 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2007). “Furthermore, in light of the fact that the district court sentenced Mitchell to the statutory maximum on his robbery counts, See 18 U.S.C. § 2111 , we cannot imagine that the sentence would have been more favorable had the district court known the guidelines were advisory.”
United States v. William Fred Burns, 701 F.2d 840 (9th Cir. 1983). “Burns was indicted in December 1981, convicted by a jury, and appeals. He contends that (1) preindictment delay violated his due process rights, (2) substantial evidence did not support the jury’s verdict, (3) he cannot be convicted under 18 U.”
United States v. Dixon, 273 F.3d 636 (5th Cir. 2001). “Defendant contends that 18 U.S.C. § 2111 does not specify the intended “unit of prosecution”; there is no clear indication in the statute that the intention is to punish a defendant separately for each victim of a multi-victim robbery incident.”
United States v. James McNeal, 818 F.3d 141 (4th Cir. 2016). “Earlier this year, for example, the Eighth Circuit concluded that robbery in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States ünder 18 U.S.C. § 2111 satisfied the similarly worded force clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), because it required a…”
United States v. Lawrence P. Peters, 435 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2006). “§ 1153 (a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2111 . On February 4, 2004, Peters moved to suppress the confession on the ground that he signed it after the agents refused his request for counsel.”
United States v. Corbert Goldtooth, 754 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2014). “On September 27, 2011, Appellants were each charged with two counts of aiding and abetting robbery on an Indian reservation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2111 , 1153, and 2. Count 1 alleged that Appellants had robbed or attempted to rob Crawford of “a package of Tops brand…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.