A fte r ex am in in g th e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d , w e h av e c on c lu d ed th atora l arg u m en t is * u n n ec es sa ry . T h u s, th e ap p ea l is su b m itt ed on th e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d . See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2) (C). 

# United States Court of App eals F orthe Se ve n thC ircu it Chic ago, I lli noi s 606 04 Subm i tte d M ay 25, 20 10 * D eci ded M ay 26, 20 10 B efo re W IL L IA M J. B A U E R, Cir cu i tJudg e M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e IL A N A D IA M O N D R O V N E R, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 09
- 1572 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A, P la intif f-A pp ellee,

v . E L L I S M E M B E R S, D ef endant-Appellant. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe So uthern Dist ri ct o fInd i ana, I ndi an apo l i s Di vi si o n. N o. 1: 08- CR
- 0009 3- 001 Sarah Ev an s B arker, Judg e . O R D E R E llis M em b er s w as co n vic te d of p os se ss ion of a fire ar m by a felo n, see1 8 U. S . C. § 9 22( g) ( 1) , and sent enced to 11 0 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. On appealhe c hal l enges wh ether h is p rior Ind ian a c on vic tio nfor re sis tin g la w en for c em en t, seeI ND . C ODE § 35- 44- 3- 3(b) ( 1) ( A ) , qual i fi es as a cr i m e o fvi ol ence und erthe gui del i nes. At the ti m e o fse ntenci ng, c irc u it p re c ed en t w as ag ain sth im , se e U nite d States v. Spell s , 537 F.3d 743 , 752 (7th C ir. 20 08 ), cert. denied, 129 S. C t. 23 79 (20 09 ), bu t M em b er s h op ed th atw e w ou ld rec on sid er in NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 09- 1572 Page 2

l i g hto fa n El ev en thCi r cui t ca se tha t ho l ds a si m i l arF l o r i da st atut e i s no t a vi o l en t fel o ny u n d er th e A rm ed C ar ee r C rim in al A c t (“ A C C A ”), 18 U .S.C . § 92 4 (e )(2) (B ), see U nited Sta tes v. Har r i s on , 5 5 8 F . 3 d 1 2 8 0 ( 1 1 thC i r . 2 0 0 9 ) . A ft e rb r i e fi n gfi n i s h e d inth i s c a s e , h o we v e r, we re affir m ed ou r h old in g th at§ 35 -44 -3-3 (b )(1) (A ) is a v iole n t fe lon y. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Sy k es , 5 9 8 F . 3 d 3 3 4 ( 7 thC i r . 2 0 1 0 ) . B e c a u s e Me mb e r s ’ s c a s e i s in d i s t i n g u i s h ab l e fr o m Sy k es a nd Spell s , we affi rm the sente nce. M embe r s do es no t co nt es t th athe was c o nv i ct ed o fr es i st i ngl aw e nf o r ce m en t us i ng a v eh icle , a C las s D felon y. SeeI ND . C OD E § 35- 44- 3- 3(b) ( 1) ( A ) . The di str i ct c ourtcl ass i fi ed th e pr i o rc o nv i ct i o n a s a cr i m e o fv i o l en ce a s defi ne d i n § 4 B1. 2( a) o fthe s en te nc i ng gu id elin es an d u se d it to inc re as e M em b er s’s ba se offe n se lev el t o 2 0. SeeU. S . S . G. § 2 K 2. 1( a) ( 4) . Although M em ber s a rgues that we shoul d fo l l ow the El eve nth Cir cui t’ s l ead i n Har r i s on and hol d that § 35
- 44- 3- 3(b) ( 1) ( A ) i s no t avi ol ent c ri m e, we rej ecte d that ar g um en t i n Sy k es . In Sy k es , the defe nd ant had a pri orfel ony convi cti on fora vi ol ati on o f th e sa m e I ndi an a st atut e—§ 3 5- 44
- 3- 3(b) ( 1) ( A)— th atwas a t i ss ue in Spell s an d th atis ag ain b efo re u s in th is c as e. Sy k es , 598 F.3d at33 5. A fte r ap p lyin g th e th re e-s te p an aly sis es tabl i sh ed i n B ega y v . U nited Sta tes , 5 53 U. S . 1 37( 20 08 ) , we r ea ffi r m ed o urho l di ngin Spell s an d c o nc l ude d tha t r es i st i ngl aw e nf o r ce m en t i nv o l ve s th e ty pe o f“ pur po se ful, v i o l en t an d ag gr es siv e” be h av ior t h atm ak es it sim ilar in k in d to th e c rim es liste d in th e A C C A . Sy k es , 59 8 F . 3d at3 37 . We c o ns i der ed th e r ea so ni ngin Har r i s on but expla i ned that w e s aw no new fac ts or c irc u m st an c es th atco n vin c ed u s t o ov er tu rn ou r p re c ed en t. Id. at33 7- 38. Acco r di ng l y, b ec au se we us e a m o di fi ed ca te g o r i ca la ppr o ac h in de si g na tingv i o l en t offe n se s, Begay, 553 U . S. at 141, M em bers’s cas e fal ls squ arely un d er Sy kes a nd Spell s . That hi s ch al l en g es a r i se s unde rthe gui del i ne s r athe rtha n the ACCA i s o fno i m po r t be ca us e th e tw o p ro vis ion s a t is su e e m p loy th e s am e la n gu ag e a n d are int er p re te d alike . See U nited St at e s v. Bil l ups , 53 6 F . 3d 574, 57 9 n. 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) . Havi ng twic e dete rm i ned that a vi o l at i o n o f§ 3 5- 44
- 3- 3(b) ( 1) ( A) qua l i fi es a s a vi o l en t fel o ny, we ca n fi nd no e r r o rin the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o i ncre ase M em ber s’ s ba se- offense l eve lunder § 2K2.1 ( a) ( 4) bas ed on h is p rior co n vic tio nfor re sis tin g la w en for c em en t. Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we AF F I RM th e s en te n c e im p os ed by th e d ist ric t c ou rt .