Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 789 F.3d 335, 341 (4th Cir. 2015). In Doctor, the Fourth Circuit held that South Carolina strong arm robbery categorically falls under the ACCA’s force clause and thus still constitutes a violent felony even after Johnson. 842 F.3d at 312. Courts’ interpretations of the ACCA’s violent-felony definition “apply with equal force” to § 4B1.2(1)’s crime-of-violence definition. United States v. Jarmon, 596 F.3d 228, 231 n.* (4th Cir. 2010). South Carolina strong arm robbery is a lesser-included offense of armed robbery. State v. Scipio, 283 S.C. 124, 322 S.E.2d 15, 16 (1984). As that lesser-included offense is categorically a crime of violence under the force clause, “it necessarily follows” that armed robbery is, too. Cf. United States v. Chisolm, 579 Fed.Appx. 187, 195-96 (4th Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>). So is South Carolina attempted armed robbery. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that  215 is categorically a crime of violence for purposes of ussg  2l12 (B) holding that previous domestic violence finding did not have res judicata effect in proceeding to modify visitation because domestic violence and visitation modification proceedings are different causes of action (C) holding that battery under wyoming law did not necessarily qualify as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (D) holding that bank robbery by force and violence or intimidation under 18 usc  2113a is a crime of violence (E) holding south carolina crime of criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature was categorically a crime of violence under ussg  4b121 because its lesserincluded offense criminal domestic violence fell entirely within  4b12ls force clause
Output (English): holding that previous domestic violence finding did not have res judicata effect in proceeding to modify visitation because domestic violence and visitation modification proceedings are different causes of action