Charles Benton Bagwell v. United States of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES BENTON BAGWELL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 18-35675
18-35676
D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00264-BLW
1:05-cr-00174-BLW-1
1:16-cv-00265-BLW
1:05-cr-00132-BLW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 15, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Charles Benton Bagwell appeals from the
district court’s judgments denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions. 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.
* 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
JUL 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-35675
In both appeals, Bagwell contends that his conviction for armed bank
robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), is not a crime of violence for
purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3). This argument is foreclosed. See United States
v. Watson, 881 F.3d 782, 784 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 203 (2018)
(federal armed bank robbery by force and violence or by intimidation is
categorically a crime of violence under the force clause of section 924(c)(3)).
Moreover, contrary to Bagwell’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 parties’ remaining
arguments.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --