Bryan Mark Johnson v. United States of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRYAN MARK JOHNSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 18-35672
D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00258-BLW
1:11-cr-00122-BLW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 18, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Bryan Mark Johnson appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Jones, 877 F.3d 884, 886 (9th Cir. 2017),
we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
SEP 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-35672
Johnson contends that his convictions for federal bank robbery and armed
bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), are not predicate violent
felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B), or crimes
of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3). These arguments are foreclosed. See
United States v. Watson, 881 F.3d 782, 786 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 203
(2018) (federal bank robbery and armed bank robbery by force and violence or by
intimidation are categorically crimes of violence under the force clause of section
924(c)(3)); see also id. at 784 (because section 924(c)(3)’s force clause and section
924(e)(2)(B)’s force clause are “similarly worded,” cases interpreting one also
apply to the other). Contrary to Johnson’s contention, Watson is not “clearly
irreconcilable” with Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (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 government’s alternative
argument.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --