NAWIW e. AW. lJuog Wcm Cjol&A in WWz V.
OoWA kWW, SSO U-W 25^, Zb&, 2io ^.c4. ZISS
IT? L.ES ZS 20s(zooo^AWi ejcAWy'
U.t>.d. hZWhi^s \l£Jjy\2uZ 'r^JDC{ oC CLoLLbi \
<^exl&>\on AWk o£_'
AW CxO\l'L£nM£/A 2:&&£.(krhjL IS
WrAur\
a pi
n opinion 2T
AAWtAWZ- A-W. InkcitHLfA'l cirA cX
vo2y
£22 lIlMlW w/Vvh ^bfepLC- .
RjoAWiy onWt 18 QS-C, §ZltS>(A\ WVecW Ak
A^WrAiai GJichW tbuci'
WcW <pbOCtWCDu\Ct ^
4o \f\cluW AW ££=££ aI'i 'in^AtuckonSi AW lir»
L
2lCCu?-58 £.vj
A-W. 'WrELf\L2=£= OAW v lnc£>.W

Whether the acting Leon Vhs Corl in Cape v. United States, 556 U.S. 255, 268, 129 S.Ct. 2155, 173 L.Ed.2d 1208 (2008), trial court's robbery under 18 U.S.C. 2113(a) instructions require proof of general intent, and whether the precedent on this opinion affects the government's assertion that the indictment and trial court's instructions to include the essential time element with respect to the bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. 2113(a) affects the accused's substantial rights and seriously affected the fairness of the legal proceedings