Case Explained: USA V. BROWN

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-23 Docket: 9:24-cr-00049-DLC-1 The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Mallory Brown’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and its determination that his prior bank robbery conviction constituted a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4). Regarding the motion to withdraw, the court applied an abuse of discretion standard, holding that Brown failed to demonstrate he could not have foreseen the new evidence—police reports and FBI recordings showing his request to surrender firearms—at the time of his plea. The court noted that because Brown himself initiated the recorded calls, he reasonably should have anticipated law enforcement documentation, and because he never submitted the evidence for review, he could not establish it was exculpatory or provided a fair and just reason for withdrawal. On the sentencing enhancement issue, the court applied de novo review and found Brown’s argument that 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) is indivisible foreclosed by *United States v. Watson*, noting he raised the issue only to preserve it for potential en banc consideration. The practical consequence is that Brown’s conviction and sentence stand as imposed by the district court. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.