# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued November 15, 2018
Decided December 13, 2018

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

No. 18-1199

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

,

v

.

DEMONE RULE, Defendant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 16 CR 420

J ohn Robert Blakey, Judge

.

O R D E R

Demone Rule was arrested after fleeing from a traffic stop; he had a handgun tucked into his waistband and later was convicted of being a felon in possession. The district court determined that he was subj ect to a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) , 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), because he had three qualifying convictions, including one fo r attempted murder in Illinois. He was sentenced accordingly but appeals that senten ce, contending that his Illinois attempted murder conviction is not a categorical viol ent felony. Binding precedent controls this appeal, and so we affirm the judgment of the district court. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp . P. 32.1No. 18-1199 Page 2

Police officers pulled over Rule’s car because he used an alley as a throughway. As officers approached his vehicle on foot, he floored the gas pedal to evade them. He ran a stop sign, turned sharply, then stoppe d his car in the middle of the street and, leaving the keys in the ignition, fled on foot. The officers caught up to and arrested him; they found the handgun stuck in his waistband.

Rule was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. The district court determined, over Rule’s objection, that the ACCA required that Rule be sentenced to a minimum of 15 years in prison because of his three qualifying prior convictions, including the one for Illinois attempted murd er. The district court imposed a sentence of 235 months’ imprisonment, within the Guidelines range of 235 to 293 months.

Rule’s sole contention on appeal is that Illinois attempted murder is not categorically a “violent felony” under the A CCA’s “elements” clause, so his Guidelines range was miscalculated. See Samuel Johnson v. United States , 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) (striking down the “residual” clause and requiring any violent felony to qualify under

the elements or enume rated-offenses clauses); see Mathis v. United States , 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (requiring use of the categorical approa ch for crimes with indivisible elements). A “violent felony” under the el ements clause “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force ag ainst the person of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i). “[T]he phras e ‘physical force’ means violent force—that is, force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person.” Curtis Johnson v. United

States , 559 U.S. 133, 140 (2010).

We held that Illinois attempted murder is indeed a crime of violence under the

ACCA in Hill v. United States , 877 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2017) ( reh’g denied, en banc rev denied, Feb. 12, 2018). In Hill , we adopted the reasoning of Judge Hamilton’s concurrence in

Morris v. United States , 827 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2016). There, he noted that to prove attempt of a crime, it is necessary to sh ow that each element of that crime was attempted. Id . at 699. Because “the intent element of the attempt offense includes intent to commit violence against the person of an other,” “the attempt crime itself includes

violence as an element.” Hill at 719, citing Morris at 698–699 (Hamilton J. concurring).

Murder in Illinois is a “violent felony” under Curtis Johnson . Because physical
force is an element of Illinois murder, to atte mpt Illinois murder is to specifically intend to use physical force against another. 720 ILCS 5/9-1; Hill at 719. And because the element of attempted use of physical forc e makes a felony violent under the ACCA, attempted Illinois murder is also a violent felony. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i); Hill at 719.No. 18-1199 Page 3

We decline to overrule Hill . Rule, though, has preserved his argument for further review. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.