USA V. FALASHA ALI, No. 17-16777 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 10 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FALASHA ALI, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-16777 D.C. Nos. 2:10-cv-00836-APG 2:06-cr-00160-APG-RJJ -1 MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 8, 2019** Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Falasha Ali appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Ali contends that his convictions for unarmed and armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), are not crimes of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). This argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Watson, 881 F.3d 782, 784-86 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 203 (2018) (federal unarmed and armed bank robbery by force and violence, or by intimidation, are categorically crimes of violence under the force clause of section 924(c)(3)(A)). Ali asserts that Watson was wrongly decided, but as a three-judge panel, we are bound by the decision. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (three-judge panel is bound by circuit precedent unless that precedent is “clearly irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority). We treat Ali’s additional claims as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999). AFFIRMED. 2 17-16777

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.