FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 29, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11383 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -003 27 -C R -01-JO F -1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s C O N L E Y P E T E R S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ay 29, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C onl e y P e t e r s pl e a de d gui l ty t o one c ountof pos s e s s i ng a f

i r e a r m a f t e rbe i ngPeters does not c hallenge thedistrict court’s c onclusion that his other two felonies 1 constituted “violent felon[ies]” under ACCA. 2 conv i ct ed of a f

el on y, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g)( 1). T he di stri ctcourt se nt ence d h i m t o serve 18 0 m on ths i n p ri son, the m i ni m um se nt ence the court w a s a b l e t o i mp o s e u n d e rth e A r me d Ca r e e rCr i mi n a l A c t( A CCA ) , 1 8 U . S. C. § 924( e ) ( 1) . A C C A ’ s 180- m onth m a nda t ory m i ni m um appl i e s t o a ny pe r s on w ho vi ol a t e s § 922( g) a nd ha s ha d thr e e pr e vi ous c onvi c t i ons “ f ora vi ol e ntf

e l ony or a s er i ou s drug o ff

ense . ” I d. A tse nt enci ng , af t erre vi ew i ng the pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rtprepare d b y the prob at i on offi ce , the di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatP et er s w as subj ec tt o A C C A ’ s m andat ory m i ni m um because he had three p r e v io u s c o n v ic tio n s , e a c h o f w h ic h q u a lif

ie d a s a “v io le n t f

e lo n y .” O n e o f th e th ree felon i es th atth e d i stri ctco u rttreat ed as a “ v i o l en tfel o n y” for A C C A pu rposes w as P et er s’ s 198 1 con vi ct i on for a tt em pt ed se cond degree bu rgl ary und erT enness ee l aw . O n app ea l , P et er s a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourt m i sc al cul at ed hi s s ent ence because, he sa ys , hi s 198 1 con vi ct i on for a tt em pt ed bu rgl ary, as defi ned b y T enness ee l aw , ca nn otbe consi dere d a vi ol entfe l on y und er A C C A . W e d is a g r e e a n d th e r e f o r e a f f ir m P e te r s ’s s e n te n c e . O u ra n a ly s is o f th is 1 ap p e a l tr a c k s th e ap p r o a c h s e t f o r th b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s r e c e n t d e c is io n in J a m e s v . U n ite d S ta te s , ___U .S . ___ , 1 2 7 S . C t. 1 5 8 6 ( 2 0 0 7 ) .3 T he t erm “ vi ol entfe l on y” i s def i ned b y A C C A as any c ri m e pun i shabl e by i m pri sonm entfor at erm e x c e e d in g o n e y e a r. . . th a t— ( i ) ha s a s a n e l e m e ntthe us e , a tt e m pt e d us e , or thr e a t e ne d us e of

phy s i c a l f

or c e a ga i ns tthe pe r s on of a nothe r ; or ( i i ) i s bur gl a ry , a r s on, ore xt or t i on, i nvol ve s us e of ex p l o si v es, o r o th erw i se i n v o l v es co n d u ctth atp resen t s a s e r io u s p o te n tia l r is k o f p h y s ic a l in

ju ry to a n o th e r . 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (e )( 2)(B ). A tthe t i m e P et er s w as conv i ct ed, T enness ee defi ned sec on d d egre e burgl ary a s f ol l ow s : “ B ur gl a ry i n the s e c ond de gr e e i s the br e a ki ng a nd e nt e r i ng i nt o a dw el l i ng ho use or a ny other hou se , bu i l di ng , room or room s there i n u se d and o cc up i ed by any pers on or pers on s a s adw el l i ng pl ac e or l od gi ng ei ther pe r m a ne nt l y ort e m por a r i l y a nd w he the ra s ow ne r , r e nt e r , t e na nt , l e s s e e orpa y i ng gu es t , by day, w i th the i nt entt o com m i ta f el on y. ” T enn. S t at . § 3 9-90 3 (re peal ed 19 89 ). P et er s w as conv i ct ed un der T enness ee ’ s gener al att em ptst atut e, w hi ch at the t i m e pr ovi de d a s f

ol l ow s : “ I f

a ny pe r s on . . . a tt e m pt [ s ] t o c om m i t [ ] a ny f e l ony o rc r im e p u n is h a b le b y im p r is o n m e n t in th e p e n ite n tia ry , w h e r e th e p u n is h m e n t is n o t o th e rw is e p r e s c r ib e d , h e s h a ll, o n c o n v ic tio n , b e p u n is h e d b y im p r is o n m e n t in the pe ni t e nt i a ry note xc e e di ng f i ve ( 5) y e a r s , or , i n the di s c r e t i on of the j ury , by i m pr i s onm e nti n the c ounty w or khous e orj a i l notm or e tha n one ( 1) y e a r . ” T e nn.4

S t a t . § 39- 603 ( r e pe a l e d 1989) ; s e e S t a t e v. S t a ggs , 554 S . W . 2d 620, 624 ( T e nn. 19 77 ) ( “ W e hol d thatS ec . 39 -603 i s our general att em ptst atut e. ”) . S ec on d d egre e bur gl a ry w a s a f

e l ony f orpurpos e s of

the ge ne r a l a tt e m pts t a tut e . S e e S t a t e v. C o le , 6 6 5 S .W .2 d 4 0 7 , 4 0 8 ( T e n n . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ) . A t th e tim e P e te r s w a s c o n v ic te d , T e n n e s s e e ’s “la w o f c r im in a l a tte m p t, th o u g h san ct i o n ed b y v ari o u s st atu t es, w as j u d i ci al l y d efi n ed . ” S t at e v . R eev es, 916 S . W . 2d 909, 910- 11 ( T e nn. 1996) . A s de f i ne d by the T e nne s s e e c our t s , the el em ent s of c ri m i nal att em ptw er e: “ (1) a n i nt entt o com m i ta s peci fi c c ri m e; (2) a n ove r ta c tt ow a r d the c om m i s s i on of tha tc r i m e ; a nd ( 3) a f

a i l ur e t o c ons um m a t e the c r i m e . ” I d. a t911. A s r e qui r e d f orappl i c a t i on of

A C C A , P e t e r s ’ s c onvi c t i on for a tt em pt ed se cond degree burgl ary w as “ pu ni shabl e by i m pri sonm entfor at erm e x c e e d in g o n e y e a r .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ; s e e R a f f e r ty v . S ta te , 1 6 S .W . 72 8, 72 8 (T enn. 18 91 ) ( construi ng form ervers i on of § 3 9-60 3 and ho l di ng that

“ [ t ] he f a c ttha tthe puni s hm e ntf orthe a tt e m pti s i n the a l t e rna t i ve , e i the rby im p r is o n m e n t in th e p e n ite n tia ry o rb y f in e a n d im p r is o n m e n t in th e c o u n ty ja il, doe s notm a ke i ta ny l e s s a n of f e ns e puni s ha bl e by i m pr i s onm e nti n the peni t ent i ary, or t ake f

rom i tthe chara ct er i st i c of afe l on y” ). A s di d the part i es i n Jam es , w hi ch i nv ol ved a conv i ct i on for a tt em pt ed bu rgl ary und erF l ori da l aw , the part i es here agre e thatP et er s’ s a tt em pt ed bu rgl ary5

co n v icti o n ca n n o t b e c o n sid er ed a “v io len t felo n y” u n d erclau se (i) o f A C C A ’s d e f in itio n b e c a u s e a tte m p te d s e c o n d d e g r e e b u r g la ry u n d e rT e n n e s s e e la w d o e s n o t have “ as an el em entthe use, att em pt ed use, or threa t ened use of physi ca l forc e agai nstthe pers on of anot her. ” 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (e )( 2)(B )( i ); se e J am es , ___ U . S . at

___, 12 7 S . C t . at15 91 . A nd as the C ou rtre cogn i ze d i n Jam es , att em pt ed bu rgl ary ca nn otqu al i fy as any of the cr i m es spec i fi ca l l y e nu m er at ed i n cl ause (i i ). Id. T hat i s b ecau se att em p t ed b u rg l ary i s n o tarso n o r ex t o rt i o n an d d o es n o ti n v o l v e th e u se o f e x p lo s iv e s . N o rd o e s a tte m p te d b u r g la ry q u a lif y a s “b u r g la ry ” u n d e rc la u s e ( ii) be c a us e i tdoe s notm e e tthe A C C A de f i ni t i on of bur gl a ry s e tf

or th i n T a y l orv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 495 U . S . 575, 598, 110 S . C t . 2143, 2158 ( 1990) : “ a n unl a w f ul or u n p r iv ile g e d e n try in to , o rr e m a in in g in , a b u ild in g o ro th e rs tru c tu r e , w ith in te n t to c om m i ta c r i m e . ” A tt e m pt e d bur gl a ry i s notT a y l or - de f i ne d bur gl a ry be c a us e one o f th e r e q u ir e d e le m e n ts o f a tte m p te d b u r g la ry u n d e rT e n n e s s e e la w is “a f a ilu r e to c ons um m a t e the [ unde r l y i ng] c r i m e . ” R e e ve s , 916 S . W . 2d a t911; s e e J a m e s , ___ U .S . a t _

__ , 1 2 7 S . C t. a t 1 5 9 1 ( n o tin g th a t a tte m p te d b u r g la ry u n d e rF lo r id a la w is notT a y l or - de f

i ne d bur gl a ry be c a us e i tr e qui r e s tha tthe de f e nda nt“ ‘ f

a i [ l ] i n the pe rpe tr a t i on or[ be ] i nt e r c e pt e d orpr e ve nt e d i n the e xe c ut i on’ of the unde r l y i ng offe nse” ). T hus , the onl y que s t i on pr e s e nt e d i n thi s appe a l , s i m i l a rt o the que s t i onAlthough Peters does not so argue in this appeal, we note that the Court in J ames re jected 2 the argument that attempt crimes are cate g orically excluded from the scope of § 924(e) (2)( B) (ii)’s residual provision. 6 addres se d b y the C ou rti n Jam es w i th res pectt o F l ori da l aw , i s w hether a tt em pt ed se co n d d eg re e b u rg lary , as d ef in ed b y T en n es se e law at th e tim e o f P eter s’s conv i ct i on , fa l l s w i thi n A C C A ’ s c l ause (i i ) r es i du al prov i si on for c ri m es that

“ otherw i se i nv ol v[e] cond uctthatpres ent s ase ri ou s pot ent i al ri sk of ph ys i ca l i nj ury t o ano ther. ” 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (e )( 2)(B )( i i ). 2 T o a ns w e rthi s que s t i on, w e m us tus e the “ c a t e gor i c a l appr oa c h” a dopt e d by th e S u p rem e C o u rtfo r th e p u rp o se o f d efi n i n g o th er A C C A o ffen ses. S ee Jam es,

___ U . S . at___, 12 7 S . C t . at15 93 . “ U nd erthi s app roac h, w e l oo k o nl y t o the fa ct o f c o n v ic tio n a n d th e s ta tu to ry d e f in itio n o f th e p r io ro f

f e n s e a n d d o n o t g e n e r a lly c o n s i d e rth e p a r t i c u l a rf a c t s d i s c l o s e d b y th e r e c o r d o f c o n v i c t i o n . T h a ti s , we c o n s id e rw h e th e rth e e le m e n ts o f th e o f f e n s e a r e o f

th e ty p e th a t w o u ld ju s tif y its i ncl usi on w i thi n the re si du al prov i si on , w i tho uti nq ui ri ng i nt o the spec i fi c c on du ct of thi s part i cul aroffe nd er . ” I d. at___, 12 7 S . C t . at15 94 (c i t at i on s a nd i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). W e m ustl oo k fi rs tt o T enness ee l aw t o d et erm i ne w hattype of c on du ct const i tut ed att em pt ed bu rgl ary a tthe t i m e of P et er s’ s c on vi ct i on . T he general att em p tst atu t e u n d er w h i ch P et ers w as co n v i ct ed i s u n h el p fu l fo r th atp u rp o se7

be c a us e , a s w e not e d a bove , the l a w of c r i m i na l a tt e m pti n 1981 w a s j udi c i a l l y , not s t a tut or i l y , de f

i ne d. A ttha tt i m e , T e nne s s e e c our t s r e qui r e d a s a n e l e m e ntof att em pt ed bu rgl ary thatthe defendantengage i n an “ ov ertac tdi re ct ed t o [the] c o m m is s io n ” o f

b u r g la ry . S e e G e r v in v . S ta te , 3 7 1 S .W .2 d 4 4 9 , 4 5 0 ( T e n n . 1 9 6 3 ) . W i tho utci t i ng any autho ri ty thatsupp ort s the prop osi t i on , P et er s m ai nt ai ns that T enness ee ’ s a tt em ptst atut e i s c on strued “ i n an ext re m el y broad m anner, ” s o b road th a t in P e te r s ’s v ie w “a d e f e n d a n t w o u ld b e g u ilty o f a tte m p te d b u r g la ry b y m e r e ly col l ec t i ng som e burgl art oo l s a nd dri vi ng ar ou nd a nei gh bo rhoo d l oo ki ng for a n em pty hou se . ” P et er s B r. at16 . B as ed on thi s observat i on , P et er s r ea sons that a tt e mp t e d b u r g l a ry u n d e rTe n n e s s e e l a w i s n o ta v i o l e n tf e l o n y u n d e rA CCA because i tdo es no t“ pres en[t ] a s er i ou s pot ent i al ri sk of ph ys i ca l i nj ury t o ano ther. ” 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (e )( 2)(B )( i i ). W e di sa gree w i th P et er s’ s vi ew of T enness ee l aw and t hu s hi s c on cl usi on abou tthe appl i cabi l i ty of A C C A i n thi s c as e. T h e g i sto f P et ers’ s arg u m en t , m u ch l i k e th e p et i t i o n er’ s arg u m en ti n Jam es, i s tha ti n T e nne s s e e a pe r s on c a n be c onvi c t e d of a tt e m pt e d bur gl a ry by e nga gi ng in m e r e ly p r e p a r a to ry c o n d u c t — c o n d u c t th a t d o e s n o t p o s e a p h y s ic a l r is k to o th e r s . S e e J a m e s , ___U .S . a t _

__ , 1 2 7 S . C t. a t 1 5 9 4 ( “J a m e s c o n te n d s th a t th is broad st atut ory l angu age s w ee ps i n m er el y pre para t ory a ct i vi ty thatpo se s no rea l da nge rof

ha r m t o othe r s — f

ore xa m pl e , a c qui r i ng bur gl a r s ’ t ool s orc a s i ng aIn 1989, Tenne ssee’ s g eneral attempt statute, § 39-603, wa s replac ed with a substantive 3 attempt statute, § 39-12-101, which displace s the judicially imposed “over

t act” requirement in favor of a statutorily

imp os e d “ su

bs tanti al st ep”re quire ment. See James, ___ U.S. at ___, 127 S. Ct. at 1594 (notingthe bre adth of the virtually identical 4 l an gu age u s ed in Florida’s attempt statute — re quiring“any act towa rd the c ommissi on” of burg lary ). 8 s truc tur e w hi l e pl a nni ng a bur gl a ry . ” ) . B uttha ti s nota n a c c ur a t e s t a t e m e ntof the l aw i n T enness ee t od ay , no r i s i tan ac cura t e s t at em entof the l aw i n T enness ee at th e tim e o f

P e te r s ’s c o n v ic tio n in 1 9 8 1 . T h e le a d in g c a s e o n c r im in a l a tte m p ts in T e nne s s e e a tthe t i m e of P e t e r s ’ s c onvi c t i on w a s D upuy v. S t a t e , 325 S . W . 2d 238 ( T e nn. 1959) , ove rrul e d by R e e ve s , 916 S . W . 2d a t914 ( r e c ogni z i ng D upuy a s the

“ bestexam pl e” of T enness ee court s’ pre- 19 89 i nt erpret at i on of cr i m i nal att em pt ). 3 A l tho ug h the typi ca l ph ra si ng of the ov ertac tel em entof a c ri m i nal att em pt , as re ci t ed i n G ervi n and other T enness ee ca se s, m ay se em fa i rl y broad i n a general s e ns e — the a c tm us tbe “ di r e c t e d a tthe c om m i s s i on of ” bur gl a ry — the

4 T e nne s s e e S upr e m e C our ti n D upuy ha d s i gni f i c a nt l y r e s tr i c t e d the m e a ni ng a nd appl i ca t i on of thatel em ent , st at i ng that“ [t ] he ov ertac tnece ss ary t o con st i tut e a n a tt e m ptt o c om m i tc r i m e m us tgo be y ond m e r e pr e pa r a t i on, a nd c om m i s s i on of the c r i m e m us tbe a tl e a s tappa r e nt l y pos s i bl e t o the r e a s ona bl e appr e he ns i on of [ the ] a c c us e d. ” 325 S . W . 2d a t240 ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . T he C our ti n D upuy c ha r a c t e r i z e d the ove r ta c ta s “ the di r e c tm ove m e ntt ow a r d the c om m i s s i on [ of the cr i m e] af t erthe prepara t i on s have been m ade. ” I d. C i t i ng D up uy as the ar chetypal9

ca se on the appl i ca t i on of the ov ertac tre qu i re m ent , the T enness ee S up re m e C ou rt i n R e e ve s c onf

i r m e d tha t , pr i ort o 1989, “ T e nne s s e e c our t s [ f ol l ow i ng the l e a d of D upuy ] c ons true d the t e r m ‘ ove r ta c t ’ ve ry na rr ow l y . ” 916 S . W . 2d a t911 (e m ph as i s a dd ed). Th e Su p r e me Co u r ti n J a me s s i mi l a r l y r e c o g n i z e d th a tth e Fl o r i d a Su p r e me C o u r t, ap p ly in g F lo r id a ’s a tte m p t s ta tu te in th e b u r g la ry c o n te x t, h a s “c o n s id e r a b ly n a rr o w e d ” th e s ta tu te ’s b r o a d la n g u a g e b y r e q u ir in g th a t a d e f e n d a n t e n g a g e in s om e “ ove r ta c tdi r e c t e d t ow a r d e nt e r i ng orr e m a i ni ng i n a s truc tur e or c onve y a nc e . ” J a m e s , ___ U . S . a t___, 127 S . C t . a t1594 ( c i t i ng J one s v. S t a t e , 608 S o. 2d 797, 799 ( F l a . 1992) ) . T he C our ti n J a m e s poi nt e d outtha tthi s “ na rr ow e d” ap p lic a tio n o f

F lo r id a ’s a tte m p t s ta tu te c o n f ir m s th e f

a c t th a t “[ m ]e r e p r e p a r a tio n is n o t e n o u g h ” to s u s ta in a c o n v ic tio n f o ra tte m p te d b u r g la ry in F lo r id a . I d . S i m i l a r l y , a nd c ontr a ry t o P e t e r s ’ s a r gum e nton appe a l , i ti s c l e a rf r om the T e nne s s e e c a s e l a w tha tm e r e pr e pa r a t i on w oul d notha ve be e n e nough t o s us t a i n a c onvi c t i on f

ora tt e m pt e d s e c ond de gr e e bur gl a ry i n 1981. S e e D upuy , 325 S . W . 2d a t239 ( “ A m e r e pr e pa r a t i on i s note nough. ” ) ; i d. a t240 ( “ F ore xa m pl e the p r o c u r e m e n t b y a p r is o n e ro f to o ls a d ap te d to b r e a k in g ja il d o e s n o t r e n d e rh im g u ilty o f a n a tte m p t to b r e a k ja il.” ) . W e th in k th a t th e “h e ig h te n e d s ta n d a r d ,” J a m e s , ___U .S . a t _

__ , 1 2 7 S . C t.10

at 1 5 9 4 , u se d b y F lo rid a c o u rts to ap p ly th e o v er t act re q u irem en t o f F lo rid a’s a tt e m pts t a tut e i n the bur gl a ry c ont e xti s m a t e r i a l l y i ndi s t i ngui s ha bl e f r om the

“ very narr o[w ] , ” R ee ves, 91 6 S . W . 2d at91 1, construct i on gi ven t o the ov ertac t r e q u ir e m e n t b y T e n n e s s e e c o u r ts a t th e tim e o f P e te r s ’s c o n v ic tio n . I n F lo r id a , to be conv i ct ed of att em pt ed bu rgl ary, a def endantm ustengage i n som e c on du ct

“ di r e c t e d t ow a r d e nt e r i ng orr e m a i ni ng i n a s truc tur e orc onve y a nc e . ” J a m e s , ___ U .S . a t _

__ , 1 2 7 S . C t. a t 1 5 9 4 . T h is f o r m u la tio n o f

th e ru le is , in o u rv ie w , m e r e ly a nothe rw a y of

s t a t i ng, i n the bur gl a ry c ont e xt , the ove r ta c ts t a nda r d appl i e d by T enness ee court s a tthe t i m e of P et er s’ s c on vi ct i on . A tthatt i m e, t o b e c on vi ct ed o f att em p t ed b u rg l ary i n T en n essee, a d efen d an tm u sth av e b een i n su ch cl o se p r o x im ity to th e ta r g e te d s tru c tu r e th a t th e “c o m m is s io n o f th e [ b u r g la ry ] [ w o u ld have been] atl ea stapparent l y possi bl e t o the re as on abl e app re hensi on of [the] a c c u s e d .” D u p u y , 3 2 5 S .W .2 d a t 2 4 0 . S ta te d d if f e r e n tly , it is in c o n c e iv a b le to th in k th a t, u n d e rT e n n e s s e e la w , a b u r g la ry c o u ld h a v e b e e n “ap p a r e n tly p o s s ib le to th e . . . a c c u s e d ” u n le s s th e a c c u s e d h a d e n g a g e d in s o m e c o n d u c t s u b s ta n tia lly si m i l art o thatre qu i re d u nd erF l ori da l aw — cond uctfoun d b y the C ou rti n Jam es to p o s e a s e r io u s p o te n tia l r is k o f p h y s ic a l in

ju ry . O urr e a di ng of

T e nne s s e e l a w i s c ons i s t e ntw i th the c onc l us i on r e a c he d by the S i xth C i rc ui ti n U ni t ed S t at es v. B ureau, 52 F . 3d 58 4 (6t h C i r. 19 95 ), i n w hi chTh ec ourt in B ure a u alsosurv e ye d a ff

ir me d attempt e d b urg lary

c onvic tio ns un der t

hepo st- 5 1989, “substantial step” attempt statute, but we are not c oncer ned with those case s beca

use our f ocus is nece ssarily

constraine d to the law as it existed at the time of Peters’s c onviction. 11 the courtw as fa ce d w i th the exactsa m e quest i on pres ent ed i n thi s app ea l . T here , the courtsurvey ed “ af

fi rm ed conv i ct i on s f

or att em pt ed bu rgl ary i n T enness ee , unde rboth § 39- 603 a nd i t s r e pl a c e m e nt ” a nd c onc l ude d “ tha ta de f e nda nt c onvi c t e d of

thi s c r i m e l i ke l y e nt e r e d orne a r l y e nt e r e d a bui l di ng. ” B ur e a u, 52 F. 3 d a t5 9 2 ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d ) . O n th e b a s i s o f th a ts u r v e y , w h i c h c o n f i r ms D u p u y ’s r e s tr ic tiv e in te rp r e ta tio n o f th e o v e r t a c t r e q u ir e m e n t, th e S ix th C ir c u it in B ureau d et erm i ned thatatt em pt ed bu rgl ary, as defi ned b y pre -198 9 T enness ee l aw , const i tut es as a “ vi ol entfe l on y” un der A C C A ’ s r es i du al prov i si on for c ri m es 5 th a t “in v o lv [ e ] c o n d u c t th a t p r e s e n ts a s e r io u s p o te n tia l r is k o f p h y s ic a l in

ju ry to a nothe r . ” 18 U . S . C . § 924( e ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) ; s e e B ur e a u, 52 F . 3d a t593. O u rr e a d in g o f

T e n n e s s e e la w in th is r e s p e c t is a ls o s u p p o r te d b y J a m e s , in w h ic h th e S u p r e m e C o u r t id e n tif ie d th e S ix th C ir c u it — s p e c if ic a lly , its d e c is io n in B ureau — as on e of s even C ou rt s of A pp ea l that“ has c on strued an att em pt ed bu rgl ary l aw si m i l ari n scope t o F l ori da’ s. ” ___ U . S . at___ & n. 3, 12 7 S . C t . at 15 95 & n. 3 (em ph as i s a dd ed). T he S up re m e C ou rti n Jam es concl ud ed thatatt em pt ed bu rgl ary und er F lo r id a la w is a “v io le n t f e lo n y ” u n d e rth e r e s id u a l p r o v is io n o f A C C A ’s c la u s e ( ii)12

because, as narr ow l y c on strued by the F l ori da court s, i t“ i nv ol ves c on du ctthat pres ent s ase ri ou s pot ent i al ri sk of ph ys i ca l i nj ury t o ano ther. ” H avi ng det erm i ned th a ta tt e m p t e d s e c o n d d e g r e e b u r g l a ry , a s d e f i n e d b y p r e - 1 9 8 9 T e n n e s s e e c a s e l a w, i s m a t e r i a l l y i ndi s t i ngui s ha bl e f r om a tt e m pt e d bur gl a ry unde rF l or i da l a w , w e t oo ar e bou nd t o con cl ud e, for the re as on s s t at ed by the S up re m e C ou rti n Jam es , that P et ers’ s 1 9 8 1 co n v i ct i o n fo r att em p t ed seco n d d eg ree b u rg l ary i s a “ v i o l en tfel o n y” u n d e rth e r e s id u a l p r o v is io n o f c la u s e ( ii) . S e e J a m e s , ___U .S . a t _

__ , 1 2 7 S . C t. a t1594- 96. P e t e r s ’ s 180- m onth s e nt e nc e i s a c c or di ngl y a f f i r m e d. A FFI R M ED