[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 99 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cv -0 01 84 -LGW -J EG
TERRY N. TAYL OR, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us WARDEN, UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 22 , 20 13 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR, andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-11993 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 1 of 13Terry Tay lo r, a pr o s e fed eral pri so ne r, ap pe al s the de ni al by the Uni te d

St at es Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a o f hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 41 fed eral habe as co rp us pe ti ti on . On ap pe al , Tay lo r arg ue s t ha t h is sen te nc e was 1 im pr op erl y en hanc edun de r th e Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act (“ ACCA”) , 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e), t hu s re su lt in g i n a30 0 m on th sen te nc e. W itho utth e en ha nc em en t, h e was subjec t t o aten -y ear s ta tu to ry m ax im um forpo ss es si on of afir earm by a
co nv ic te d fe lo n. He ar gu es th athe is actua ll y in no cen t o f th e ACCA en ha nc em en t be cau se , pu rs ua ntto th e rec en t Supr em e Co urt d eci si on s i n Begay v. Uni te d Sta tes , 55 3 U.S. 1 37 , 12 8 S . Ct. 1 58 1, 1 70 L. Ed. 2d49 0 (2 00 8) , and Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 55 9 U.S. , 13 0 S . Ct. 1 26 5, 1 76 L. Ed. 2d1 (2 01 0) , hi s Il li no is
co nv ic ti on forth eftfro m

a pe rs on no lo ng er qua li fie s as a vi ol en t fe lo ny. W e co nc lu de th atTay lo r ha s n otsh own un de r § 2 25 5 t ha t h e is en ti tl edto bri ng a § 22 41 pe ti ti on an d t he refo re af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng . The av ai labi li ty of habe as rel ie f un de r § 2 24 1 p res en ts a qu es ti on of l aw th at we rev ie w de no vo . Coo k v. W il ey , 20 8 F .3d13 14 , 13 17 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Ty pi cal ly, co ll at eral att ack s o n t he va li di ty of a fed eral sen te nc e are bro ug htun de r

Taylor’s § 2241 petition is an attempt to circumve nt the restric tions in 28 U.S .C. 1 § 2255(h) on suc cessive pe titions under 28 U .S.C. § 2255. The instant § 2241 petiti on was filed in the Southern District of Ge org ia (the district of his c onfinement), but heis challeng ing his 2005 sentenc e in the Nor

thern District of I llinois . Taylor’s direc t appea l to the Seventh Circuit was unsucc essful, as we re his subseque nt § 2255 petitions. 2 Case: 12-11993 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 2 of 1328 U.S.C. § 2 25 5. Sa wye r v. Ho lder , 32 6 F .3d13 63 , 13 65 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ), cer t.

de ni ed , 12 4 S . Ct. 2 58 (20 03 ). A pro vi si on of § 22 55 , ho wev er, p erm it s a f ed eral pr is on er, u nd er v ery li m it edcir cu m st an ces , to ch al le ng e th e le ga li ty of hi s de te nt io n b y

fil in g ahabe as pe ti ti on pu rs ua ntto § 2 24 1. Se e28 U.S.C. §§ 22 41 (a), 22 55 (e). Th atpro vi si on , kn ownas t he “ sa vi ng s cl au se ,” pr ov id es th at : An ap pl ic at io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us inbe ha lf o f a p ris on er wh o is au th or iz edto ap pl y

for rel ie f by m ot io n p ur su an t t o t hi s s ect io n, sh al l n otbe en te rta in edif i t ap pe ars th atth e ap pl ic an t h as fai le d t o ap pl y forrel ie f, by m ot io n, t o t he co urt wh ic h s en te nc edhi m , or t ha t su ch co urt h as de ni edhi m rel ie f, un le ss itals o app ears th atth e rem edy by m ot io n i s i na de qu at e o r in effe ct iv e to tes t t he leg al it y of hi s d et en ti on . 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5( e). Acco rd in gl y , a co urt m ay en te rta in a § 2 24 1 p et it io n i f th e pe ti ti on er es tabl is he s t ha t the rem edy pro vi de d fo r un de r § 2 25 5 i s “ in ad equa te or in effe ct iv e to tes t t he leg al it y of h is de te nt io n.” Sa wye r , 32 6 F .3dat 1 36 5. Whe n apri so ne r ha s p rev io us ly file d a§ 2 25 5 m ot io n t o v acat e, he m us t ap pl y foran d re cei ve pe rm is si onfro m th e co urt o f ap pe al s b efo re fi li ng a su cces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n. 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 (h ). Su chres tri ct io ns on su cces si ve § 22 55 m ot io ns , st an di ng alo ne , do no t re nd er tha t s ect io n i na de qu at e o r in effe ct iv e wit hi n t he m ean in g o f th e sa vi ng s cl au se . Gilbe rt v. Uni te d Sta te s , 64 0 F .3d12 93 , 13 08 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) ( en ba nc ), cer t. d en ie d , 13 2 S . Ct. 1 00 1 (2 01 2) . Rathe r, a pe ti ti on er’s cl ai m

m ig htm eetth e requi rem en ts of t he sav in gs claus e o nl y if: “ (1 ) 3 Case: 12-11993 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 3 of 13th atcla im

is ba se d upo n aretro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le Supr em e Co urt d eci si on ; (2 ) th e ho ld in g o f th atSupr em e Co urt d eci si on est ab li sh es th e p et it io ne r was co nv ic te d fo r a n on ex is te ntoff

en se ; an d (3 ) ci rcu itlaw s qu arel y for ecl os edsu ch a cl ai m

at th e ti m e itot he rwis e sh ou ldha ve be enrai se d i n t he pe ti ti on er’s tria l, ap pe al , or fir st§ 2 25 5 m ot io n.” W

of fo rd v. Sc ot t, 17 7 F .3d12 36 , 12 44 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). A pr is on er m

us t s at is fy

all th ree p ro ng s o f th is tes t b efo re the W of fo rd th res ho ldis
m et . Inan en ba nc de ci si on , we recen tl y ad dr es se d the is su e o f whe th er the § 2 25 5( e) s av in gs claus e p erm it te d afed eral pri so ne r to ch al le ng e h is sen te nc e, as op po se d t o h is co nv ic ti on , ina § 2 24 1 p et it io n wh enth e § 22 55 (h ) ba r ag ai ns t su cces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io ns pre ve nt edhi m fro m rai si ng th atsen te nc in g c la im
. Gil be rt , 64 0 F .3d12 93 . W e h el d t ha t t he § 2 25 5( e) s av in gs claus e “ do es no t au th or iz e a fed eral pri so ne r to bri ng in a § 2 24 1 p et it io n acla im , whi ch wou ld ot he rwis e b e b arre d b y

§ 2 25 5( h) , th atth e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es were m is ap pl ie d in a way th atres ul te d i n alo ng er s en te nc e n otex ceed in g t he st atut ory m ax im um .” Id . at 1 32 3. Ho wev er, we s pe ci fic al ly decl in edto ad dr es s wh ethe r th e § 22 55 (e)
sa vi ng s cl au se wou ldau th or iz e a fed eral pri so ne r to bri ng a § 2 24 1 p et it io n i f a
se nt en ci ng erro r res ul te d i n asen te nc e th atex ceed edth e st atut ory m ax im um . Id
. at 13 06 . 4

Case: 12-11993 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 4 of 13The st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e fo r a co nv ic ti on forpo ss es si on of a fir earm by a con vi ct edfel on , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ), is ten y ears ’ im pr is on m en t. 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( a)(2 ). Howev er, the ACCA au th or iz es anen ha nc ed pe na lty , with am an da to ry m in im um sen te nc e o f 15 y ears ’ im pr is on m en t, fo r a de fen da ntwho vi ol at es § 9 22 (g ) an d wh o “ ha s t hr ee p rev io us co nv ic ti on s” for“ a vi ol en t fe lo ny.” Id
. § 9 24 (e)( 1) . The ACC A enh an cem en t re su lt edin Tay lo r’s rece iv in g a30 0- m on th sen te nc e. The ACCA d efi ne s t he term “ vi ol en t fe lo ny” as “ an y

cri m e p un is habl e b y im pr is on m en t fo r a t erm

ex ceed in g o ne y ear” th at“ (I) h as as a n e le m en t t he us e, at te m pt edus e, orth reat en edus e o f ph y si cal for ce ag ai ns t t he pe rs on of a no th er; or (ii ) is bu rg la ry , ars on , or e xt orti on , in vo lv es us e o f ex pl os iv es , or o th erwi se in vo lv es co nduc t t ha t p res en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ri skof p hysic al in jury to
an ot he r.” Id
. § 9 24 (e)( 2) (B). Th e fi rs t cl au se of § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) is kn own as t he

“ el em en ts claus e”; th e se co ndha lf o f th e se co ndclaus e is kn own as t he “ res idua l cl au se .” Inass es si ng whet he r a p rio r co nv ic ti on qu al ifi es as avi ol en t fe lo ny for pu rp os es of t he ACCA, we ge ne ral ly app ly a “ cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch ,” lo ok in g n o fu rth er tha n t he st atut ory

de fin it io n o f th e o ffen se an d t he jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti on . Uni te d Sta te s v. Pa lo min o Ga rc ia , 60 6 F .3d13 17 , 13 36 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Whe n 5 Case: 12-11993 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 5 of 13th e st atut e is am bi gu ou s– co ve rin g c on du ctth atco ns ti tu te s a v io le ntfel on y , as wel l
as co nduc t t ha t d oe s n ot

–we m ay em pl oy a “ m od ifi edcat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch ” an d
ex am in e th e fac ts un de rlyin g t he co nv ic ti on , bu t we d o s o o nl y in ord er t o de te rm in e th e st atut ory

ba si s fo r th e co nv ic ti on . Id . at 1 33 6- 37 . In d oi ng so , we m ay co ns ul t “ an y

ch arg in g d oc um en ts , th e wri tt enpl ea ag reem en t, t he tra ns cri pt of th e p le a co ll oq uy, andan y ex pl ic itfactua l fi nd in g b y th e tr ia l ju dg e to whi ch th e de fen da ntass en te d.” Id . at 1 33 7. At Taylor’s J ul y

29 , 20 05 , sen te nc in g h eari ng forhi s co nv ic ti on of po ss es si on of afir earm

by a felo n, t he Uni te d S ta te s Di stric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof I ll in oi s re vi ewedTay lo r’s pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s fo r el ig ib il it y foren ha nc em en t u nd er the ACCA. The d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edth at Tay lo r’s 19 89 co nv ic ti on forth eftfro m a pe rs on was avi ol en t fe lo ny un de r § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (ii ). The d is tri ctco urt re li edon th e Sev en th Cir cu it ’s ho ld in g i n 2

The I llinois theft statute under which Ta ylor was c onvicted provide d that: 2 A per son commits theft when he know ingly : (a) O btains or exerts unauthorized control over

proper ty of the owne r; ... and (1) Intends to deprive the owner perma nently of the use or

benef it of the proper

ty ; ... (e) Sente nce.... ( 4) Thef t of proper ty from the pe rson not exceeding$300 ... is a Class 3 felony
. 38 I LL . C O MP . S TAT . A N N . § 16-1 (West 1988). In his brief, Ta ylor states that he w as convic ted under the provision of the I llinois statute dea ling with “the ft of prope rty , other than a firea rm, not from the pe rson.” The information in Taylor’s theft c ase state s that he “know ingly obtained unauthorized control over proper ty from the pe rson of Christina Peterson”and the tra nscript of his plea colloquy

shows that he plea ded guilty to “the off

ense of theft as c harg ed in the information.” 6

Case: 12-11993 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 6 of 13Uni te d Sta te s v. Ho wz e , 34 3 F .3d91 9 (7 th Cir . 20 03 ), whe re the co urt h el d t ha t

th eftfro m

a pe rs on un de r Mi nn es ot a’s th eftst atut e was a vi ol en t fe lo ny un de r § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (ii ). The How ze co urt re as on edth atth eftfro m a pe rs on , li ke th e en um erat edcri m e o f bu rg la ry in § 9 24 (e)( 2) (B)( ii ), “ en ta il [s ] a ri skth atvi ol en ce wil l erup t b etween th e th ie f an d t he vi ct im .” 34 3 F .3dat 9 23 . The ri skof v io le nc e an d i nju ry

po se d b y su ch co nf

ro nt at io n was su ffi ci en t t o b rin g t he ft f ro m a pe rs on

“ wit hi n the st atut ory

de fin it io n” of avi ol en t fe lo ny un de r th e ACCA. Id
. at 9 24 . Tay lo r ap pe al edhi s s en te nc e to th e Sev en th Cir cu it , arg ui ng th atth e d is tri ct co urt erredin no t co ns id eri ng a st at em en t fi le d b y th e St at e’s Att orne y

aft er h e pl ead edgu il ty tha t d es cri be d t he act s u nd erl y in g h is co nv ic ti on as n on vi ol en t. Th e Sev en th Cir cu itaffi rm edTay lo r’s se nt en ce. Uni te d Sta te s v. Ta yl or , 17 9 F . App ’x. 95 7 (7 th Cir . 20 06 ), cer t. d en ie d , 12 7 S . Ct. 3 11 (20 06 ). The c ou rt h el d t ha t t he St at e’s Att orne y ’s st at em en t was ou ts id e th e sc op e o f do cu m en ts th atco urts co ul d, pe r Sh ep ar d v . Uni te d Sta te s , con si de r in de te rm in in g wh ethe r a cri m e was a vi ol en t fe lo ny un de r th e ACCA. Id
. at 9 62 . The co urt al so he ldth atth e d is tri ct co urt h adpro pe rly reli edon How ze an d t ha t the re was “ no rel ev an t d is ti nc ti on ” be twee n the Mi nn es ot a p ro vi si on at i ss ue in How ze an d Il li no is ’ th eftfro m a pe rs on pro vi si on . Id
. at 9 61 n.2 . Tay lo r th enfil edtwo pe ti ti on s fo r rel ie f un de r § 22 55 . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he fir stan d d is m is se d t he sec on d fo r la ck of 7 Case: 12-11993 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 7 of 13juri sd ic ti on . 3

Inth e y ears si nc e th e res ol ut io n o f Tay lo r’s di rectap pe al , th e Supr em e Co urt h as is su edsev eral op in io ns an al y zi ng whet he r a p art ic ul ar cr im e fel l wi th in th e am bi t o f th e ACCA’s en ha nc em en t p ro vi si on . Se e Ja mes v. Uni te d Sta tes , 55 0 U.S. 19 2, 1 27 S. Ct. 1 58 6, 1 67 L. Ed. 2d53 2 (2 00 7) ; Begay v. Uni te d Sta te s , 55 3 U.S. 13 7, 1 28 S. Ct. 1 58 1, 1 70 L. Ed. 2d49 0 (2 00 8) ; Ch amb er s v. Un it ed

St at es , 55 5 U.S. 1 22 , 12 9 S . Ct. 6 87 , 17 2 L. Ed. 2 d 4 84 (20 09 ); Jo hn so n v . Uni te d Sta te s , 55 9 U.S. , 13 0 S . Ct. 1 26 5, 1 76 L. Ed. 2d1 (2 01 0) ; Sy kes v. Uni te d Sta te s , 56 4 U.S. __ , 13 1 S . Ct. 2 26 7, 1 80 L. Ed. 2d60 (20 11 ). Tay lo r arg ue s t ha t the ho ld in gs of two of t he se op in io ns , Jo hn so n an d Begay , dec la ss ify the ft f ro m a pe rs onas a vi ol en t fe lo ny un de r th e ACCA an d t ha t h e was th eref or e se nt en cedto a te rm

of im pr is on m en t b ey on d t he st atut ory m ax im um . Tay lo r arg ue s t ha t h e is en ti tl edto 4
Taylor’s first § 2255 petition raised c laims of ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. 3 His second § 2255 pe tition was filed as a motion pursuant to F ed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), which the district court construe d as a § 2255 motion bec ause it wa s its functional equivalent. That motion challeng ed his sentenc e enha nceme nt under Begay and Chambers v. United States , 555 U.S. 122 129 S. Ct . 687, 172 L . Ed. 2d 484 (2009). It was dismissed as an una uthorized successive petition. Taylor’s § 2255 petitions were filed in the Northe rn District of I llinois , the district of his conviction. His subsequent § 2241 pe titions wer e filed in the Southern D istrict of Geor g ia, the district of his confineme nt.

Taylor’s solitary

and conc lusory

statement that his conviction “doe s not meet the 4 elements test under

the re sidual clause” in Jame s does not sufficie ntly

prese nt the issue for appellate revie w. Hamilton v. Southland Chris tian School, Inc. , 680 F.3d 1316, 1319 ( 11th Cir. 2012) (“ A passingref

ere nce to a

n issue in a brief

is not enoug h, and the f

ailure to make arguments and cite a

uthorities in support of an issue wa ives it.”). 8 Case: 12-11993 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 8 of 13ha ve hi s cl ai m de ci de d i n a§ 2 24 1 p et it io n b ecau se § 2 25 5( e)’s s av in gs claus e sh ou ldap pl y

to sen te nc in g c la im s s uc h a s h is , th e que st io n l eftop enin Gil be rt . He fu rth er ar gu es th athe m eet s W of fo rd ’s requi rem en ts foracce ss in g the sav in gs cl au se be cau se : 1 ) Jo hn so n an d Begay are r etro act iv e d eci si on s, 2 ) th ei r ho ld in gs es tabl is h t ha t t he ft f

ro m a pe rs on is no t a v io le ntfel on y an d h e is th eref

or e actua ll y in no cen t o f th e ACCA en ha nc em en t, an d 3 ) How ze ha d p rev io us ly squ arel y fo recl os edhi s cl ai m . The go ve rn m en t h as co nc ed edth atth e fi rs t an d t hi rdpro ng s o f W of fo rd are m et , so we ne edno t ad dr es s tho se . Nor m us t we d eci de th e Gil be rt qu es ti on of whe th er § 22 55 (e)’s s av in gs claus e ap pl ie s t o c la im s t ha t a s en te nc in g e rro r res ul te d i n asen te nc e b ey on d t he st atut ory m ax im um . Even if we wer e to all ow su ch sen te nc in g c la im s, Taylorst il l co ul d n otsat is fy W of fo rd ’s sec on d p ro ng be cau se Jo hn so n an d Begay do no t d ecl as si fy th eftfro m

th e p ers on as avi ol en t fel on y . Fi rs t, Jo hn so n is no t ap pl ic ab le to Tay lo r’s cl ai m be cau se itdo es no t im pl ic at e th e ACCA’s res idua l cl au se , un de r whi ch Tay lo r’s of fen se was d eem eda vi ol en t fe lo ny. In Jo hn so n th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t t he Flo rid a fel on y off en se of ba tt ery was no t a v io le ntfel on y un de r th e ACCA’s el em en ts claus e, § 9 24 (e)( 2) (B)( I). Jo hn so n , 55 9 U.S. at__ , __ , 13 0 S . Ct. at12 68 , 12 74 . The 9 Case: 12-11993 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 9 of 13Co urt re as on edth at , “ in th e co nt ex t o f a s ta tu to ry de fin it io n o f ‘ vi ol en t fel on y ,’ th e ph ras e ‘ph y si cal for ce’ m ean s vi ol en t fo rce—th atis , for ce capabl e o f cau si ng ph y si cal pa in or i nju ry

to an ot he r pe rs on .” Id
. at _ _, 1 30 S. Ct. at12 71 . Becaus e th e fel on y

off en se of b at te ry

in Flo rid a en co m

pa ss ed“ an

y in te nt io na l p hysic al
co nt act , ‘ no m at te r ho w sl ig ht ,’ ” th e Co urt d et erm in edth atth e o ffen se di d n ot en ta il th e v io le ntfor ce n eces sa ry to fal l u nd er the ACCA’s el em en ts claus e. Id
. at

__ , 13 0 S . Ct. at12 70 (ci ta ti on om it te d) . The Co urt d idno t co ns id er wh ethe r th e of fen se qu al ifi edas avi ol en t fe lo ny un de r th e ACCA’s res idua l cl au se an d de cl in edto rem an d the cas e fo r th atis su e to be co ns id ered
. Id
. at _ _, _ _, 1 30 S. Ct. at12 72 , 12 74 ; se e a ls o Un it ed St at es v. Sc hn ei de r , 68 1 F .3d12 73 , 12 82 (11 th Cir
. 20 12 ) (n ot in g t ha t “

Jo hn so n di d n otco ns tru e th e res idua l cl au se at a ll ”); Roz ie r v. Uni te d Sta te s , No. 1 1- 13 55 7, 2 01 2 WL 58 70 12 3, at*1 (11 th Cir . Nov . 21 , 20 12 ) (n ot in g t ha t t he Jo hn so n Co urt “ ex pl ic it ly refus edto de ci de whet he r th atoff en se was a cri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er the ACCA’s res idua l cl au se ”). Tho ug h Begay do es im

pl ic at e th e ACCA’s res idua l cl au se , th e d eci si on st il l fai ls to ass is t Taylor . In Begay , th e Co urt i nt erp ret edth e li stof e nu m erat edcri m es in th e fi rs t cl au se of § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (ii ) as ha vi ng a li m it in g e ffec t o n the sec on d cl au se of § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (ii ). 55 3 U.S. at14 1- 43 , 12 8 S . Ct. at15 84 -8 5. Th e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the sec on d c laus e d idno t co ve r al l cr im es th atin vo lv eda “ se rio us 10 Case: 12-11993 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 10 of 13po te nt ia l ri skof p hysic al in jury to an ot he r,” b uton ly tho se cri m es th atwere

“ ro ug hl y si m il ar, i n k in d a s wel l as inde gr ee o f ri skpo se d” to bu rg la ry , ars on , ex to rti on , or c rimes in vo lv in g t he us e o f ex pl os iv es . Id
. at 1 42 -4 3, 1 28 S. Ct. at 15 85 (ci ta ti on om it te d) . The Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t al l o f th e ACCA’s en um erat ed cri m es “ typic al ly inv ol ve pu rp os efu l, v io le nt , andag gr es si ve co nduc t” an d t ha t th is type o f co nduc t “ is su ch th atitm ak es m or e li ke ly tha t an off en de r, la te r po ss es si ng a gu n, wi ll us e th atgu n d el ib erat el y to ha rm a vi ct im .” Id
. at 1 44 -4 5, 12 8 S . Ct. at15 86 (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . The Co urt d is ti ng ui sh ed“ cri m es in vo lv in g i nt en ti on al or p ur po se fu l co nduc t (a s i n b ur gl ary an d a rs on )” fro m st ric t li ab il it y cri m es su chas t he dri vi ng un de r th e in flu en ce o ffen se at i ss ue in th e cas e be fo re i t. Id
. at 1 46 , 12 8 S . Ct. at15 87 . “ Inbo th in st an ces , th e o ffen de r’s pr io r cri m es rev eal a de gr ee o f cal lo us ne ss to wardris k, b utin th e fo rm er i ns ta nc e th ey al so sh ow an in crea se d l ik el ih oo d t ha t t he off en de r is th e k in d o f pe rs on who
m ig htde li be rat el y

po in t t he gu n a ndpu ll th e tr ig ge r.” Id
. Thre e y ears lat er the Co urt re cal ib rat edit s Begay an al y si s i n Sy kes v. Uni te d St at es . The Co urt d es cri be d Begay as “ [t]he so le de ci si on of t hi s C ou rt c on cern in g th e rea ch of AC CA’s res idua l cl au se in whi ch ris k was no t t he di sp os it iv e fac to r.” Sy kes v. Uni te d Sta te s , 56 4 U.S. at__ , 13 1 S . Ct. at22 75 . The Co urt ca ll edth e

“pu rp os efu l, v io le nt , andag gr es si ve ” p hr as e an“ ad di ti on to th e st atut ory tex t” an d 11 Case: 12-11993 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 11 of 13ex pl ai ne d t ha t i t h adbe enus edin th e co nt ex t o f an al y zi ng “ a cri m e ak in to st ric t

li ab il it y , neg li ge nc e, an d re ck le ss ne ss cri m es .” Id
. at _ _, 1 31 S. Ct. at22 75 -7 6. Thi s C ou rt r ecen tl y

joi ne d s ev eral ot he r ci rcu it s i n i nt erp ret in g Sy kes as li m it in g t he “pu rp os efu l, v io le nt , andag gr es si ve ” te stto off en se s t ha t ar e stric t li ab il it y , neg li ge nc e, or

reck le ss ne ss cri m es . Uni te d Sta te s v. C hi tw oo d , 67 6 F .3d 97 1, 9 79 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ), cer t. d en ie d , 13 3 S . Ct. 2 88 (20 12 ). Thu s, af te r Sy kes
an d Ch itwo od , “ [o ]ffens es th atare n otst ric t l iabi li ty, ne gl ig en ce, o r rec kl es sn es s cri m es qu al ify as cri m es of v io le nc e u nd er ... [th e] resi du al claus e if th ey cat eg or ic al ly pos e a s eri ou s p ot en ti al ris k o f ph y si cal in jury thatis si m il ar t o t he ris k p os edby one of t he enum erat edcri m es . At le as t wh ere t he pre vi ou s co nv ic ti on requi redkn owi ng or i nt en ti on al co nduc t, i t i s en ou gh if t ha t co nv ic ti on was for a cri m e th atge ne ral ly creat es as m uc h ri skof p hysic al in

jury as on e o f th e en um erat edcri m es .” Id
. at 9 79 (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Thi s s ta nd ardis no t m at eri al ly di ffer en t fr om

th atap pl ie d b y

th e Sev en th Cir cu itin How ze to th eftfro m

a pe rs on , whi chis no t a s tri ctli ab il it y , neg li ge nc e, orreck le ss ne ss cri m e. Se e How ze , 34 3 F.3 d a t 9 24 (ex pl ai ni ng th atth e ri skof i nju ry po se d b y th eftfro m

a pe rs on was “ at le as t as li ke ly (in t he ag gr eg at e) as in jury from bu rg la ry ”). Fo r th es e rea so ns , Begay , as i nt erp ret edby Sy kes an d Ch itwo od , creat es no ch an ge inth e g ov ern in g st an da rd –t he How ze st an da rd

–wh ic h was ap pl ie d b y

th e co urt wh ic h c on vi ct ed 12 Case: 12-11993 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 12 of 13an d s en te nc edTay lo r an d t he co urt wh ic h d en ie d h is di rectap pe al (i.e ., th e

North ern Dis tri ctof I ll in oi s an d t he Sev en th Cir cu it ). Inot he r wor ds , Begay si m pl y do es no t ap pl y

to Tay lo r’s cl ai m . Inord er t o a cces s re li ef u nd er § 22 41 vi a § 22 55 (e)’s s av in gs claus e, a pe ti ti on er’s cl ai m

m us t “ res t upo n acir cu itlaw- bu st in g, re tro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le Supr em e Co urt d eci si on .” W of fo rd , 17 7 F .3dat 1 24 5. Jo hn so n an d Begay do
no th in g t o u nd erm in e th e Sev en th Cir cu it ’s ana lysis in How ze –i .e., th e an al y si s ap pl ie d a t Taylor ’s sen te nc e an d o n h is di rectap pe al

–th atth eftfro m a pe rs on is a vi ol en t fe lo ny un de r th e ACCA. The refo re, § 22 55 (e)’s s av in gs claus e d oe s n ot ap pl y to Tay lo r’s cl ai m . AFFIRMED.

13 Case: 12-11993 Date Filed: 01/22/2013 Page: 13 of 13