United States of America v. Cy Irving Brown

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CY IRVING BROWN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19-16274
D.C. Nos.
2:17-cv-01857-MCE-AC
2:03-cr-00104-MCE-AC-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Cy Irving Brown 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. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm.
Brown contends that armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
* 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
JAN 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-16274
§ 2113(a) and (d), is not a crime of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3).
As Brown acknowledges, this argument is foreclosed by our precedent. See United
States v. Watson, 881 F.3d 782, 786 (9th Cir. 2018) (federal armed bank robbery is
categorically a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A)). Notwithstanding Brown’s
assertion that Watson was wrongly decided, Watson controls the outcome of this
appeal. See United States v. Boitano, 796 F.3d 1160, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[A]s a
three-judge panel we are bound by prior panel opinions and can only reexamine
them when the reasoning or theory of our prior circuit authority is clearly
irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)).1
AFFIRMED.
1 We do not reach Brown’s argument that Watson is clearly irreconcilable with
Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019), because he waived that argument
by raising it for the first time in the reply brief. See United States v. Patterson, 230
F.3d 1168, 1172 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000).

-- 2 of 2 --