When a Robbery Prior Is Broader Than Generic Robbery

On November 6, 2026, the Third Circuit filed a precedential opinion in United States v. Mashaq White, No. 22-2197. The court held that a Pennsylvania third-degree felony robbery conviction is broader than generic robbery, so it is not the listed offense of "robbery" in the Guidelines definition of a "crime of violence." The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing without the increase in USSG §2K2.1(a)(1) (2021 Manual). Read the decision (PDF).

The slip prints "Filed: Nov. 6, 2026" and does not print a clock time. The court's PDF records a creation time of 9:02:10 a.m. Eastern on November 10, 2026 (14:02:10 UTC). The opinion is captioned "OPINION OF THE COURT." It does not label the decision unpublished or nonprecedential.

What happened

In June 2020, Philadelphia police responded to reports of a burglary in progress at a Rite Aid store. They saw White running down an aisle with a gun in his hand. An officer tackled him, arrested him, and recovered a semiautomatic pistol.

A grand jury returned a one-count indictment for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). White pleaded guilty.

At sentencing, the parties disputed whether his prior Pennsylvania third-degree felony robbery conviction is a "crime of violence" for §2K2.1(a)(1). The opinion calls a conviction under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3701(a)(1)(v) "Pennsylvania F3 robbery."

The presentence report said that conviction is not a crime of violence. The government raised no objection to the report. It later disputed the point in its sentencing memorandum and at the hearing. White argued in the district court that the late objection violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. He did not pursue that argument on appeal.

The district court concluded that the robbery conviction is a crime of violence. The opinion says the §2K2.1(a)(1) increase raised the base offense level and caused the advisory range to increase from 100 to 125 months to 140 to 175 months. It also says a § 922(g)(1) conviction carried a 120-month statutory maximum at the time of the offense, so 120 months became the advisory sentence by operation of law.

The 2021 manual states that arithmetic in USSG §5G1.1(a). When the statutory maximum is less than the bottom of the guideline range, the statutory maximum is the guideline sentence. The opinion describes the 120-month result. It does not cite §5G1.1.

The district court then granted what the opinion calls a modest downward variance, based on evidence of White's troubled background, and imposed 110 months.

The appeal is from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:21-cr-00237-001. Judge Karen S. Marston imposed the sentence. Judge Freeman wrote the opinion. Judges Krause, Freeman, and Roth heard the case. It was argued on July 7, 2026, and filed on November 6, 2026.

The district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. The court of appeals had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. The opinion says whether an offense is a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines is a question of law subject to plenary review, citing United States v. Quinnones, 16 F.4th 414, 417 n.2 (3d Cir. 2021).

The increase the court removed

In the 2021 manual, §2K2.1(a)(1) sets a base offense level of 26 when two conditions are met. The offense involved a semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a large capacity magazine, or a firearm described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a). And the defendant committed the offense after at least two felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.

The parties agreed that White's offense involved a semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a large capacity magazine. They also agreed that he has at least one prior conviction that qualifies as a crime of violence. The opinion says he has the two prior convictions the guideline requires only if Pennsylvania F3 robbery is a crime of violence. The opinion does not name the other prior conviction.

What "crime of violence" meant in 2021

The court applied USSG §4B1.2(a) (2021). That definition covers an offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, that either has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or is one of the listed offenses. The list includes murder, voluntary manslaughter, kidnapping, aggravated assault, a forcible sex offense, robbery, arson, extortion, and the use or unlawful possession of a firearm described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) or explosive material as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 841(c).

The opinion calls the first path the elements clause and the second the enumerated offenses clause, citing United States v. Ramos, 892 F.3d 599, 605 (3d Cir. 2018).

The court said it had already held that Pennsylvania F3 robbery does not satisfy the elements clause. It cited United States v. Peppers, 899 F.3d 211, 233 (3d Cir. 2018), and United States v. Henderson, 80 F.4th 207, 212 n.5 (3d Cir. 2023). Peppers addressed the same elements language in the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). Our page on the Armed Career Criminal Act explains that statute. This appeal decided only the listed offense of robbery.

How the court compared the prior

The 2021 manual did not define "robbery" for the enumerated offenses clause. The court used generic robbery, the offense as commonly understood. It cited United States v. Marrero, 743 F.3d 389, 398–99 (3d Cir. 2014).

The opinion states the categorical approach in these words. The court compares the elements of the statute of conviction with the elements of the generic crime. It cites United States v. Brown, 765 F.3d 185, 189 (3d Cir. 2014), quoting Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 257 (2013). If the statute of conviction has the same elements as the generic offense, or defines the offense more narrowly, the prior matches and can support an increase. The opinion cites United States v. Brasby, 61 F.4th 127, 134 (3d Cir. 2023), for that point. If the state offense allows a conviction on a broader basis than the generic offense, it may not be considered for the increase. The opinion cites United States v. Graves, 877 F.3d 494, 501 (3d Cir. 2017), for that point.

The court quoted generic robbery as "the taking of property from another person or from the immediate presence of another person by force or by intimidation," citing United States v. Scott, 14 F.4th 190, 196 (3d Cir. 2021). It had said that generic robbery requires no more than de minimis force, citing Graves, 877 F.3d at 503. This opinion decides what that force is.

The parties agreed, and the court agreed, that generic robbery requires the force Stokeling v. United States, 586 U.S. 73 (2019), described for common-law robbery: force sufficient to overcome a victim's resistance. The opinion says Stokeling did not decide generic robbery directly. It says the agreement is well founded because, as of 1986, a significant majority of states defined nonaggravated robbery as requiring force that overcomes a victim's resistance, and because other circuits have treated the two standards as the same. It cites United States v. Parham, 129 F.4th 280, 287 (4th Cir. 2025), United States v. Smith, 928 F.3d 714, 716–17 (8th Cir. 2019), and United States v. Lockley, 632 F.3d 1238, 1241–44 (11th Cir. 2011).

The opinion uses Stokeling to mark what that force is not. Force sufficient to overcome resistance "would not be satisfied by the merest touching." A defendant who merely snatches money from the victim's hand and runs away has not committed that robbery. A defendant who steals a gold chain does not use that force simply because the victim feels his fingers on the back of her neck. The opinion says those lines apply to generic robbery. It also cites United States v. Rabb, 942 F.3d 1, 5–7 (1st Cir. 2019), which held that generic robbery does not encompass a sudden purse snatching.

Why this robbery prior did not match

The court quoted the state statute it was classifying. A person is guilty of this Pennsylvania offense if, in the course of committing a theft, he "physically takes or removes property from the person of another by force however slight." The opinion cites 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3701(a)(1)(v) (2014).

The Third Circuit held that "force however slight" in this statute covers "the merest touching." It cited its earlier decision in Peppers, 899 F.3d at 233. It also held that the offense includes a typical purse snatching even when the victim offers no resistance, and that it does not require evidence of resistance. Generic robbery requires force sufficient to overcome a victim's resistance. Stokeling said that force is not satisfied by the merest touching, and the opinion said generic robbery does require evidence of some resistance, however slight. Because a person can commit Pennsylvania F3 robbery with less force than generic robbery requires, the prior "does not qualify as a 'crime of violence' under the Guidelines."

The government relied on Graves. There, the Third Circuit held that North Carolina common-law robbery is the categorical equivalent of generic robbery, and that both require only de minimis force. The court rejected the comparison. It said the "de minimis force" it described for the North Carolina offense is force sufficient to overcome a victim's resistance. It cited United States v. Dinkins, 928 F.3d 349, 357 (4th Cir. 2019).

The opinion also said North Carolina law, unlike the Pennsylvania statute, requires more than a sudden snatch. It cites United States v. Gattis, 877 F.3d 150, 159 (4th Cir. 2017), for the point that North Carolina robbery by force requires a degree of force beyond the minimum necessary to remove an item from the victim's grasp. Pennsylvania F3 robbery, the court said, requires no more force than that necessary to separate the victim from her property. The two force requirements are not the same, so Graves did not support the increase.

White therefore does not have two prior felonies that meet the Guidelines definition of a crime of violence. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing without the §2K2.1(a)(1) increase.

The robbery definition added later

White was sentenced under the 2021 manual. That edition did not define robbery. In November 2023, after the sentencing, the Commission amended §4B1.2. Amendment 822 added a definition. The November 1, 2026 manual still uses it, at §4B1.2(e)(3).

That definition says robbery is the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or to property in his custody or possession, or to the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining. It then says the phrase "actual or threatened force" refers to force that is sufficient to overcome a victim's resistance.

The opinion cites the amendment as support for the generic-robbery standard it applied. It says the Commission drew "force sufficient to overcome a victim's resistance" from Stokeling. The citation in the opinion is Amend. 822, U.S.S.G. App. C (Vol. IV), at 247. The court applied the 2021 manual to White. It did not resentence him under the 2026 manual.

Who it affects

• A person sentenced in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, or the Virgin Islands, when a conviction under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3701(a)(1)(v) is offered as the listed offense of robbery. In this precedential opinion, the Third Circuit held that offense is broader than generic robbery and is not a crime of violence for the §2K2.1(a)(1) increase.
• A person whose prior conviction is a different robbery statute. The holding is about this Pennsylvania subsection. The court contrasted it with North Carolina common-law robbery, which Graves treated as a match for generic robbery.
• A person whose prior is being tested only under the elements clause. The court said it had already held that this Pennsylvania offense fails that clause. This opinion decides the enumerated-offense question.
• A person sentenced under a later Guidelines manual. White's hearing used the 2021 manual, which had no robbery definition. The 2026 manual defines robbery and ties "actual or threatened force" to force sufficient to overcome a victim's resistance. The court discussed that language as the generic standard. It did not apply the 2026 manual in this appeal.
• A person sentenced in another circuit. The guideline text is national. This opinion decides the question for the Third Circuit.