Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): conviction constitutes a violent felony. See United States v. Coleman, 158 F.3d 199, 202 (4th Cir.1998) (en banc). The instructions underlying Wardrick’s 1983 assault conviction support the proposition that the district court did not err in characterizing that conviction as a violent felony. In Maryland, a common-law assault “presents the unusual situation in which an offense may be committed in one of two ways — one of which requires the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force and one of which does not.” Coleman, 158 F.3d at 202. Because of this ambiguity, we have been “unable to conclude that a Maryland conviction for common-law assault is per se a violent felony within the meaning of § 924(e)(2)(B)(i).” Id. However, the jury instructions in Wardrick’ th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, the district court accurately 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that necessity defense to escape did not require defendant to turn herself in and that escape is not a continuing offense (B) holding felony escape in north carolina to be crime of violence under acca because escape presents risk of injury to others (C) holding that an escape from custody under minnesota law is a crime of violence (D) holding attempt to rescue prisoner and assisting in escape to be crimes of violence because of inherent risk of force (E) holding that in light of our recognition that escape presents a continuing threat of violence until the escapee is safely returned to custody we hold that for purposes of  2k21b5 every escape is sufficiently continuing such that possession of a gun subsequent to the initial departure from custody can qualify as being in connection with the escape
Output (English): holding that necessity defense to escape did not require defendant to turn herself in and that escape is not a continuing offense