UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________

No. 23-2843 _______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RONALD DEWITT VINES, Appellant _______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00013-001) District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond _______________

Argued: December 11, 2024

Before: BIBAS, CHUNG, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Filed: April 21, 2025)

Robert A. Zauzmer [ARGUED] UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 615 Chestnut Street Suite 1250 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Counsel for Appellee Justin Aimonetti [ARGUED, WITHDREW APPEARANCE] DECHERT 1900 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Michael H. McGinley Shane Sanderson DECHERT 2929 Arch Street 18th Floor, Cira Centre Philadelphia, PA 19104 Julia Shea DECHERT 1095 Avenue of the Americas 3 Bryant Park New York, NY 10036 Counsel for Appellant

2 _______________

OPINION OF THE COURT _______________ BIBAS, Circuit Judge. Once in a blue moon, the categorical approach ends up in the right place. Ronald Vines and his sons tried to rob a bank at gunpoint. He pleaded guilty to both attempted armed bank robbery and brandishing a gun while committing a crime of violence. Now he challenges his second conviction, insisting that attempted armed bank robbery is not a crime of violence because someone can attempt an armed bank robbery without using force, violence, or intimidation. He is wrong. Even without a weapon, attempted bank rob- bery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)’s first paragraph is a crime of violence because it requires making the attempt “by force and violence, or by intimidation.” And adding a gun makes the rob- bery no less violent. § 2113(d). Common sense tells us that, but so does the categorical approach. This is the rare night when the blue moon has risen. So the District Court rightly upheld Vines’s conviction and sentence. I. VINES TRIED TO ROB A BANK AT GUNPOINT One morning, Vines and his two adult sons left the house on a mission. They got a loaded rifle, a loaded revolver, a face mask, body armor, zip ties, a police scanner, handheld radios, and a tarp and hit the road. The road led to the bank, where they hung up the tarp outside, hid behind it, and watched the bank tellers arrive. While Vines and one of his sons waited behind

3 the tarp, the other son put on the face mask, grabbed the re- volver, and snuck up on a teller. He forced her inside at gun- point but was spotted by another employee who screamed and fled, drawing attention. Vines signaled for his son to flee, so they hopped back into the car and hit the road again. This time, their trip was cut short by police. Vines pleaded guilty to two federal crimes. The first was attempted armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(d) & 2 (aiding and abetting). That violation was based on attempting to violate § 2113(a), specifically the first clause of the first par- agraph, which criminalizes bank robbery. The second crime piggybacked on the first: brandishing a gun while committing a crime of violence (the attempted armed bank robbery), in viola- tion of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) & 2 (aiding and abetting). Because Vines’s lawyer neither objected to his § 924(c) charge nor appealed, Vines had to challenge his conviction and sentence collaterally. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He claimed that his conviction for attempted armed bank robbery was not a crime of violence under § 924(c). The District Court denied that motion but granted a certificate of appealability. On appeal, Vines got permission also to argue that