28 U.S.C. § 2113
Definition
For purposes of this chapter, the terms “State court”, “State courts”, and “highest court of a State” include the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: United States v. Albert E. Mills. United States of Am. v. Kenneth B. Wonson, 964 F.2d 1186 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
United States v. Albert E. Mills. United States of Am. v. Kenneth B. Wonson, 964 F.2d 1186 (D.C. Cir. 1992). “would be treated as a state for those purposes: 28 U.S.C. § 2113 (for purposes of Supreme *1191 Court jurisdiction, references to “state courts” include District of Columbia Court of Appeals); 28 U.”
United States v. Larry Whitfield, 695 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2012). “a: “Not Guilty” on the 28 U.S.C. § 2113 (e) charge of “killing Mary Parnell in avoiding or attempting to avoid apprehension for [the attempted bank robbery] alleged in Count One”; • Paragraph 4.”
United States v. Harold T. Bradley, 812 F.2d 774 (2d Cir. 1987). “The government proceeded on the theory that Bradley took and carried away money within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2113 (b) by writing checks on his account at Bankers Trust.”
William Henry Hammond v. United States, 528 F.2d 15 (4th Cir. 1975). “On March 8, 1972, Hammond was charged in two separate indictments with two counts of violating 28 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) (bank robbery), two counts of violating 28 U.”
Maurice Anton Kienlen v. United States, 379 F.2d 20 (10th Cir. 1967). “An attorney was appointed and extensive evidentiary hearings were held. The petition was denied, and appellant has not appealed from that order.”
United States v. Richard Ray Parson, 452 F.2d 1007 (9th Cir. 1972). “Parson and Pendleton were jointly charged in counts two and three with robbing the same bank on March 24, 1969; count two charging violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) (bank robbery) and count three charging violation of 28 U.”
United States v. John E. Leek, 665 F.2d 383 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “See 28 U.S.C. § 2113 (d) (1976), quoted supra note 1.”
Arthur Mares v. United States, 409 F.2d 1083 (10th Cir. 1969). “113 provides: “(a) Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, from the person or presence of another any property or money or any other thing of value belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of any bank, or…”
Roosevelt F. Palmore v. Superior Court of the Dist. of Columbia, 515 F.2d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “§ 1363 to exclude laws applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia from the chapter on district court jurisdiction and amended 28 U.S.C. § 2113 to include the District of Columbia Court of Appeals within the terms “state court”, “State Courts”, and “highest court of a…”
Eddie Lawrence Phillips v. United States, 502 F.2d 227 (4th Cir. 1974). “It appears that, to secure a conviction of bank robbery under 28 U.S.C. § 2113 (a), the presence of a defendant in the bank is a requisite element of the offense.”
United States v. Trevor Barry Moore, 688 F.2d 433 (6th Cir. 1982). “This was a violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2113 (e) which continued until appellant left Mr.”
Clinton Eldridge v. Catricia Howard, 70 F.4th 543 (9th Cir. 2023). “§ 1451 (1)–(2): defining “State court” to include “Superior Court of the District of Columbia” and “State” to include “the District of Columbia” for removal jurisdiction • 28 U.S.C. § 2113 : defining “State court,” “State courts,” and “highest court of a State” to include “the…”
— 28 U.S.C. § 2113(a) — 1 case
Timothy Willie Sweetwine v. State of Maryland & the Warden of the Maryland House of Corr., 769 F.2d 991 (4th Cir. 1985).
— 28 U.S.C. § 2113(d) — 1 case
United States v. Richard Ray Parson, 452 F.2d 1007 (9th Cir. 1972). “Parson and Pendleton were jointly charged in counts two and three with robbing the same bank on March 24, 1969; count two charging violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) (bank robbery) and count three charging violation of 28 U.”
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.