UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________

No. 22-2153 _______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MARK JORDAN, Appellant _______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2:94-cr-00524-001) District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg _______________

Argued: September 13, 2023

Before: JORDAN, BIBAS, and PORTER, Circuit Judges

(Filed: March 25, 2024) Stacie M. Fahsel [ARGUED] Renee Pietropaolo FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE 1001 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Counsel for Appellant Robert A. Zauzmer [ARGUED] U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Counsel for Appellee _______________

OPINION OF THE COURT _______________ BIBAS, Circuit Judge. Simple questions can be hard to answer. Is armed bank robbery a crime of violence? That should be a no-brainer. But because the categorical approach applies, answering this ques- tion is far from simple. Fortunately, here, the common-sense answer is also the right one. Mark Jordan robbed banks, sometimes while carrying a gun. Now he claims that federal armed bank robbery can be committed recklessly, so it does not count as a crime of vio- lence under a federal gun statute. But the federal armed-bank- robbery statute is divisible into different crimes. And the spe- cific crime that he pleaded guilty to requires purpose or knowledge, not recklessness. So we can use the modified cat- egorical approach to get a common-sense result: armed bank robbery is a crime of violence. We will thus affirm the District Court’s denial of Jordan’s motion to correct his sentence. And we hold that whenever a federal crime is predicated on committing another crime (or

2 trying or planning to), the elements of the predicate crime count as elements of the first crime too. I. THE ARMED BANK ROBBERIES Jordan robbed three banks. During two of the robberies, he fired a gun to get the tellers to hand over the money. Luckily, no one was hurt. Jordan was charged with three armed bank robberies under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) plus two gun charges under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The armed-bank-robbery statute punishes “use of a dangerous weapon or device” while committing or attempting to commit bank robbery or another crime under § 2113(a) (or bank larceny under § 2113(b)). § 2113(d). The gun-crime statute punishes “any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence … uses or carries a firearm.” § 924(c)(1)(A). His armed bank robberies were the qualifying crimes of violence. Jordan pleaded guilty to all five counts and was sentenced to 318 months in prison. He later challenged this sentence by filing a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but the court denied it. Then he filed a second § 2255 motion, arguing that § 2113(d) is not a “crime of violence” under § 924(c). That is the motion we now consider. Section 924(c)(3) defines a “crime of violence” as any fel- ony that either: [The elements clause:] (A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or

3 [The residual clause:] (B) that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of com- mitting the offense. The Supreme Court invalidated the residual clause as uncon- stitutionally vague, leaving only the elements clause standing. United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019). In the District Court, Jordan