United States v. Tyree Stratton

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: May 15, 2024
• Docket: 24-1054
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

ALD-114 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 24-1054 ___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

TYREE STRATTON, Appellant ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal Action No. 2-05-cr-00068-002) District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg ____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 May 2, 2024

Before: HARDIMAN, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed May 15, 2024) _________

OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Tyree Stratton appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion filed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm the District

Court’s order.

The procedural history of this case and the details of Stratton’s claims are well

known to the parties, set forth in the District Court’s order, and need not be discussed at

length. In 2006, Stratton was sentenced to 260 months in prison after being found guilty

by a jury of conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery, armed bank robbery, and using

and carrying a firearm in connection with a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c). His convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. See United

States v. Archer, 282 F. App’x 164, 169 (3d Cir. 2008). Stratton later filed a § 2255

motion challenging his firearm conviction. He argued that armed bank robbery was no

longer a crime of violence. The District Court denied the § 2255 motion but issued a

certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the Supreme Court’s decision in

Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021), invalidates armed bank robbery as a

crime of violence. Stratton filed a notice of appeal. The parties were informed that we

would consider taking summary action on the appeal.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Summary action is appropriate if

there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. We

recently held that armed bank robbery is a crime of violence even after Borden. See

United States v. Jordan, 96 F.4th 584, 594 (3d Cir. 2024). Thus, this appeal presents no

substantial question, and summary affirmance is appropriate.

2 For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will

summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6. Stratton’s

motion to stay the ruling is denied as moot.