United States v. Richardson Dangleben, Jr.

── United States v. Richardson Dangleben, Jr. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: June 01, 2026 Category: General PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ Nos. 25-2807, 25-2916 ____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant v. RICHARDSON DANGLEBEN, JR., a/k/a Richard Dangleben, Jr. ____________ On Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands (D.C. No. 3:23-cr-00072-001) District Judge: Honorable Robert A. Molloy ____________ Argued December 9, 2025 Before: HARDIMAN, BIBAS, and PORTER, Circuit Judges (Filed: June 1, 2026)  _______________ OPINION OF THE COURT _______________ HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge. This appeal involves two unrelated questions of first impression. First, can a district court set and enforce a deadline by which the Government must give notice of its intent to seek the death penalty under 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a)? We hold that it can. Second, are Virgin Islands territorial offenses predicate “crime[s] of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)? We hold that they are. I A Richardson Dangleben, Jr. was charged in Virgin Islands Superior Court for first-degree murder and for using a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence. Dangleben was granted pretrial release provided that he not possess any firearms, ammunition, or dangerous weapons. The decision to release Dangleben before trial proved fatal. Just four months after he was charged with first-degree murder, Dangleben engaged in a shootout with police on St. Thomas. Dangleben was shot several times but survived. Virgin Islands Detective Delberth Phipps, Jr. was not so fortunate. He suffered a single gunshot wound and died about an hour later. Inside Dangleben’s car, law enforcement found a loaded handgun, ammunition, and 300 grams of marijuana. 2  B On October 13, 2023, a federal grand jury indicted Dangleben. As relevant here, Count One charged him with using a firearm during a crime of violence resulting in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1). Because the underlying alleged felony was murder, Dangleben was eligible for the federal death penalty. 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1). Counts Two and Three charged him with using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). As required by § 924(c)(1)(A) and (j)(1), the Government also charged Dangleben with several predicate crimes of violence stemming from his alleged killing of Detective Phipps and shootout with another officer. All of these predicate crimes of violence were Virgin Islands territorial crimes, including another first-degree murder charge. 1 After Dangleben was indicted, the Federal Public Defender asked an Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the case whether he would seek the death penalty. The AUSA responded that the office “would not be recommending the death penalty” to the Attorney General. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 146-1, at 2–3 (emphasis added). In reliance on that response, Dangleben did not then exercise his right to the “prompt[]” appointment of two attorneys, at least one of whom “shall be learned in the law applicable to capital cases.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3005. Both parties understood, however, that the Attorney General—not the local U.S. Attorney’s Office—had the ultimate authority to decide whether the Government would seek the death penalty. 3  At a status conference on November 8, 2023, the District Court asked the Government whether it intended to seek the death penalty and, if so, when it would file a notice of intent as required by 18 U.S.C.