# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 24 15

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ja m es Dway ne My ers

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - F ay et te vi ll e

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 16 , 20 18 Fil ed : J ul y

23 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, BENTO N, and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Ja m es D. Myers pl ed gu il ty to be in g a f e l o n in po ss es si on of a fir earm , in

v i ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m as an arm ed 1

The Hon or ab le Ro be r t T. Dawso n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.care er cri m in al to 18 8 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. He ap pe al s. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, t hi s co ur t af fir m s.

The Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act ( A C C A) en ha nc es se nt en ces fo r th os e who

p o s se ss fir earm s aft er th ree co nv ic ti on s fo r a “ vi ol en t fel on y or a se rio u s d r u g of fen se .” 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(1 )

. Th e d i s t ric t co ur t se nt en ced Myers as an arm ed

care er cri m in al ba se d o n o n e pr io r se rio us dr ug co nv ic ti on an d two pr io r vi ol en t fel on ie s un de r Ark an sa s la w—fi rs t-d eg ree te rro ris ti c th reat en in g an d se co nd -d eg ree ba tt ery. My ers ap pe al s, ar gu in g n ei th er o ne is a vi ol en t fe lo ny. Thi s co ur t re vi ews de no vo th e de te rm in at io n th at a co nv ic ti on is a vi ol en t fel on y un de r th e ACCA. Se e Unit ed Sta te s v. K

ei th , 63 8 F .3d 85 1, 8 52 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

I.

Myers m ai nt ai ns hi s Ark an sa s fir st -d eg ree te rro ris ti c th reat en in g co nv ic ti on is

no t a vi ol en t fel on y un de r th e ACCA. The pa rti es ag ree Myers was co nv ic te d un de r Ark an sa s Co de Ann ot at ed § 5- 13 -3 01 (a)( 1) (A). At th e ti m e of hi s co nv ic ti on , it sa id :

(a)( 1) A pe rs on co m

m it s th e of

fen se of te rro ris ti c th reat en in g in th e fir st de gr ee i f:

(A) W it h th e pu rp os e o f te rro riz in g an ot he r pe rs on , th e pe rs on th reat en s t o c au se de at h o r se rio us ph y si cal in jury or su bs ta nt ia l pr op ert y da m ag e to an ot he r pe rs on ; o r

. . . .

Ark

. Cod e Ann

. § 5 -1 3- 30 1( a) (1 )(A) (1 99 5)

. Myers arg ue s th is se ct io n is

“ ov erb ro ad ” be cau se it “ cri m in al iz es th e mak i n g of th reat s to cau se ‘sub st an ti al

pr op ert y da m ag e’ in a dd it io n t o t hr eat s ‘to cau se de at h or ser io us ph y si cal in jury,’ ”

an d “ do es no t

. . . ne ces sa ril y in vo lv e an el em en t of ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t th e pe rs on of an ot he r.”

-2

-A vi ol en t fe lo ny un de r th e ACCA is “ an y cri m e p un is ha bl e b y

im pr is on m en t fo r a te rm ex ceed in g on e y ear

. . . th at —(i ) ha s as an el em en t th e us e, at te m pt ed us e,

o r t h reat en ed us e of ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t th e pe rs on of an ot he r.” 18 U.S.C. §
92 4( e)(2 )(B)

. To de te rm in e whe th e r a p r i or co nv ic ti on is a vi ol en t fel on y , co ur ts
ap pl y a cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch , c om pa rin g “t h e e l e ment s of th e cri m e of co nv ic ti on

.

. . wit h th e el em en ts of th e ge ne ric cri m e.” Des ca m ps v. Unit ed St at es , 57 0 U.S. 25 4,
25 7 (20 13 ). If th e el em en ts cri m in al iz e a br oa de r ran ge of co nd uc t th an th e ge ne ric cri m e, th e co nv ic ti on is no t a vi ol en t fel on y

. Id

. (“ The pr io r co nv ic ti on qu al ifi es as

an ACCA pred ic at e on ly if th e st at ut e’s el em en ts are t he sa m e as , or na rro wer tha n, th os e of th e ge ne ric of

fen se .”). Howev er, “ [i]f th e st at ut e of co nv ic ti on de fin es m or e th an on e cri m e by li st in g al te rn at iv e el e men t s , ” th is co ur t ap pl ie s th e “ m od ifi ed

cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch
, to de te rm in e whi ch of th e a l te rn at iv es was th e of fen se of

co nv ic ti on .” Unit

ed Sta te s v. W

in st on , 84 5 F .3d 87 6, 8 77 (8t h C ir. 2 01 7) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

The pa rti es di sa gr ee whe th er th e cat eg or ic al or m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch

ap pl i e s

. Thi s de pe nd s on whe th er A.C.A. § 5- 13 -3 01 (a)( 1) (A) li st s al te rn at iv e el em en ts or m ean s an d is
, th eref or e, di v i s i b l e o r in di vi si bl e. Se e Ma th is v. Unit ed
St at es , 13 6 S. Ct

. 22 43
, 22 48 (2 01 6) (“ Dis ti ng ui sh in g be twee n el em en ts an d fact s is th eref or e cen tra l to ACCA’s op erat io n.” ). “ ‘E le m en ts ’ are th e ‘con st it ue nt pa rts ’ of

a cri m e’s le ga l de fin it io n— th e th in gs th e ‘pro se cu ti on m us t pr ov e to su st ai n a

co nv ic ti on .’ ” Id

. , qu ot in g Bl ac k ’s La w Dict io na ry 63 4 (1 0t h ed

. 20 14 ). “ At a tri al
, th ey are wha t th e jury m

us t fin d be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t to co nv ic t th e de fen da nt ;

an d at a pl ea he ari ng , th ey are wha t th e de fen da nt ne ces sa ril y ad m it s whe n he pl ead s
gu il ty.” Id

. (in te rn al ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Mea ns are “ [h ]ow a gi ve n de fen da nt act ua ll y
pe rp et rat ed t h e cri m e.” Id

. at 22 51

. The y “ ne ed ne it he r be fo un d by a jury no r ad m it te d b y

a de fen da nt .” Id

. at 22 48

.

A.
In Uni te d St at es v. Boa z , th is co ur t he ld § 5- 13 -3 01 (a)( 1) (A) de fin es se pa rat e el em en ts , is di vi si bl e, an d req ui res th e m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch

. Bo a z , 55 8

-3

-F.3 d 80 0, 80 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (“ The un de rlyin g st at e st at ut e de fin es two se pa rat e

of fen se s: th reat s of de at h or se rio us bo di ly i n ju r y an d th reat s to pr op ert y .”). Se e Wa lk er v. St

at e , 38 9 S.W .3d 10
, 15 (Ark

. App

. 20 12 ) (“ As ch arg ed an d in st ru ct ed to th e jury, th e of

fen se of fir s t

- de gr ee te rro ris ti c th reat en in g req ui red th e el emen ts of th reat en in g to cau se th e de at h of th e vi ct im an d th e pu rp os e of te rro riz in g th e vi ct im
, el emen ts th a t a r e n ot ne ces sa ry to pr ov e ag gr av at ed ro bb ery. ”) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Alt ho ug h Boa z was de ci de d be fo re Mat hi s , “ th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on in Mat hi s

. . . di d no t ad dr es s th e ACCA’s f o r c e c la us e,” an d, th eref or e, do es no t req ui re

reco ns id erat i o n of th e ot he rwis e co nt ro ll in g Boa z de ci si on

. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Lam b
, 84 7 F.3 d 9 2 8
, 9 3 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ), cer t. de ni ed
, 13 8 S. Ct

. 14 38 (2 01 8)

. Und er th e m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch th en , th is co ur t “ lo ok s to a li m it ed cl as s of do cu ment s [fro m th e reco rd of co nv ic ti on ] to de te rm in e wha t cri m e, wit h wha t el em en ts , a de fen da nt was co nv ic te d of .” Ma th is
, 13 6 S. Ct

. at 22 49

. The co ur t can th en de te rm in e if

th at co nv ic ti on is a cri m e o f vi ol en ce. Se e id

.

B.

Eve n if th is co ur t un de rto ok a Mat hi s an al y si s , t h e s a m e res ul t wou ld ap pl y

. Mat hi s he ld th at in de te rm in in g whe th er a st at ut e li st s el em en ts or m ean s, co ur ts lo ok

to a nu m be r of so ur ces

. Id

. at 22 56 -5 7. “[T ]h e s t a t u t e on it s face ” or st at e co ur t de ci si on s in te rp ret in g it “ m ay res ol ve th e is su e.” Id

. at 22 56

. A cou rt a ls o c an lo ok

to “ a st at e’s m od el jury in st ru ct io ns to ‘ rei nf or ce’” it s i nt erp ret at io n. Unit ed Sta te s

v. McM il la n , 86 3 F.3 d 10 53
, 10 57 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ), ci ti ng Lam b
, 84 7 F.3 d at 93 2. Se e Ma th is
, 13 6 S. Ct

. at 22 57

. If no ne of th es e pr ov id es “ cl ear an swe rs ,” th e co ur t m ay

“ pe ek ” at th e rec or ds of c on vi ct io n. Ma th is , 13 6 S . Ct. at 22 56

.

The t e x t o f th e Ark an sa s st at ut e “ ‘doe s no t pr ov id e he lp fu l gu id an ce’” on

“ whe th er th e ph ras e ‘p e r s o n or pr op ert y ’ li st s al te rn at iv e m ean s or al te rn at iv e el em en ts be cau se ‘the re is
, fo r ex am pl e, a un ifo rm pu ni sh m en t for com m is si on of ’” fir st -d eg ree te rro ris ti c th reat en in g. Se e McM il la n , 86 3 F.3 d at 10 57
, qu ot in g Unit ed
St at es v. McA rt

hur
, 85 0 F.3d 92 5, 93 8 (8t h Cir. 20 17 ). The fact th at th e wor d “ or ”

-4

-se pa rat es “ se rio us ph y si cal in jury” fro m “ su bs ta nt ia l pr op ert y da m ag e” is no t de te rm in at iv e: “ As Mat hi s reco gn iz es

. . . th e us e of th e wor d ‘or’ in a st at ut e m erel y si gn al s th at we m

us t de te rm in e whe th er th e al te rn at iv es are el em en ts or m ean s.” Id

. at 10 58
, ci ti ng Ma th is , 13 6 S . Ct. at 22 48 -4 9.

Ark an sa s cas e la w is s i mi la rly un he lp fu l. In Ada ms v. St at e , th e Ark an sa s Co ur t of App eal s sa id t h a t “t h e St at e bo re th e bu rd en to pr ov e th at ap pe ll an t act ed wit h th e pu rp os e o f t erro riz in g Karen an d th reat en ed to cau se de at h or se rio us ph y si cal in

jury or su bs ta nt ia l pr op ert y da m ag e to Karen

. . . . W ha t is pr oh ib it ed is th e

co m m un ic at io n of a th reat wit h th e pu rp os e of te rro riz in g an ot he r pe rs on .” Ad am s , 43 5 S.W .3d 52 0, 52 3- 24 (Ark . Ap p. 2 01 4) . My ers arg ue s t hi s st at em en t sh ows th e

s ta tu te ha s two in di vi si bl e el em en ts : (1 ) th e pu rp os e of te rro riz in g; an d (2 ) th reat en in g to cau se de at h or se rio us ph y si cal in jury or pr op ert y da m ag e. Bu t, in
Mas on v. St at e , th e Ar k a n s a s S u p r em e Co ur t he ld th at th e el em en ts of th e st at ut e

were sa ti sf

ie d whe re a de fen da nt th reat en ed to cau se de at h or se rio us ph y si cal in jury

to an ot he r pe rs on , wit ho ut an y pr oo f of a th r e a t t o su bs ta nt ia l pr op ert y da m ag e. Ma so n , 20 6 S.W .3d 86 9, 87 3- 74 (Ark

. 20 05 ). Thi s su gg es ts th e st at e m us t es ta bl is h,

as an el em en t of th e of

fen se , th at th e de fen da nt ei th er th reat en ed to cau se de at h or

se rio us ph y si cal in

jury or th reat en ed to cau se su bs ta nt ia l pr op ert y da m ag e to an ot he r
pe rs on

. Se e Ta v. St

at e , 45 9 S.W .3d 32 5, 32 8 (Ark

. App

. 20 15 ) (o m it ti ng th e el em en t of su bs ta nt ia l pr op ert y da m ag e an d st at in g th at “ [a] p ers on co m m it s th e of

fen se of fir st -d eg ree te rro ris ti c th reat en in g if, wit h th e pu rp os e of te rro riz in g an ot he r pe rs on , he th reat en s to cau se de at h or se rio us ph y si cal in jury to an ot he r pe rs on ”); Kni gh t v. St at e , 75 8 S.W .2d 12
, 14 (Ark

. App

. 19 88 ) (“ Und er ou r st at ut e it is an el em en t of th e of fen se th at th e d efen da nt act wit h t he pu rp os e o f te rro riz in g a no th er p ers on , i.e., it

m us t b e h is ‘ co ns ci ou s o bjec t’ to cau se fri gh t.”)

.

The Ark an sa s jury in st ru ct io ns al so are am bi gu ou s. The jury in st ru ct io ns sa y :

__ __ __ ____ ____ ____ ___ __ __ _ (Defe nd an t(s )) [is ] [are ] cha rg ed w ith the o ffen se of t erro ri st ic thre at eni ng in th e fir st deg ree. T o s us ta in

-5

-t h i s cha rg e the Sta te m us t pro ve bey on d a rea so na bl e do ubt tha t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (def enda nt(s ) ) , w ith the purp os e of terr or iz in g

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (an ot her p ers on ):

[ th reat en ed to cau se (d eat h to ) ( o r ) (s eri ou s ph y si cal in jury to ) (o r) (s ub st an ti al da m ag e to the pr ope rt y of )

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (an ot he r pe rs on ); ]

[o r]

[ th reat en ed to cau se (p hysic al in jury) (p ro pe rt y da m ag e) to a (te ach er) (_

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _) ot he r sc ho ol em

pl oyee) act in g in th e li ne of d ut y

. ]

AMI Crim. 2d 13 10 (em ph as is in or ig in al ). Each pa ren th et ic al wor d or ph ras e m ay be in cl ud ed or ex cl ud ed ba se d on th e ev id en ce. Se e And er so n v. St at e , 10 8 S.W .3d
59 2, 60 7 (Ark

. 20 03 ) ( n o t i n g th at a pa ren th et ic al in th e cri m in al jury in st ru ct io ns in di cat es it s i nc lu si on is op ti on al ).

Myers arg ue s th e in st ru ct io n co ul d di rect th e jury to de te rm in e whe th er a de fen da nt “ th reat en ed to cau se de at h to or se rio us ph y si cal in jury to or su b s ta nt ia l da m ag e to th e pr op ert y of an ot he r pe rs on .” If so in st ru ct ed
, th e jury ap pa ren tl y wou ld

no t ha ve to ag ree un an im ou sl y on wh e t h e r th e de fen da nt m ad e th reat s to in jure a
pe rs on or da m ag e pr op ert y

. Acco rd in g to Myers, t h i s su gg es ts th e st at ut e li st s

a lt erat iv e m ean s of co m

m it ti ng on e el em en t of th e cri m e. On th e ot he r ha nd
, th e in st ru ct io n co ul d di rect th e ju r y to de te rm in e whe th er a de fen da nt “ th reat en ed to

cau se de at h to or se rio us ph y si cal in jury to an ot he r pe rs on .” St at ed th is way , th e jury in st ru ct io n w o u l d s et ou t th e al te rn at es di sju nc ti ve ly, al lo win g th e co ur t to ch oo se whi ch is ap pl ic ab le

. Thi s su gg es ts th e al te rn at es are el em en ts , no t m ean s. Se e Lam b
, 84 7 F.3 d at 93 2 (“ refe ren ci ng on e al te rn at iv e te rm to th e ex cl us io n of al l o t h e r s ” d em on st rat es “ th at th e st at ut e co nt ai ns a li st of el em en ts , each on e of whi ch go es
to ward a se pa rat e cri m e”), qu ot in g Ma th is , 13 6 S . Ct. at 22 57

.

-6

-Bec au se un de r th e Mat hi s an al y si s, Arkan sa s st at e la w fai ls to pr ov id e “ cl ear

an swe rs ” on whe th er th e cat eg or ic al or m od ifi ed c a te go ric al ap pr oa ch ap pl ie s, th is

co ur t m ay lo ok to “ th e reco rd of a pr i o r c o n v i c t i o n it se lf.” Ma th is
, 13 6 S. Ct

. at 22 56

. Cf

. Unit ed St at es v. Nay lo r , 88 7 F.3 d 39 7, 4 0 6 ( 8 t h C ir. 20 18 ) (en ba nc ) (h ol di ng th at “ Mi ss ou ri la w pr ov id es a cl ear an swe r” to th e el em en ts /m ean s in qu iry

an d t he co ur t “ ne ed no t reso rt to ta ki ng a ‘peek at t he reco rd do cu m en ts ’”), qu ot in g Ma th is
, 13 6 S. Ct

. at 22 56

. Thu s, un de r ei th er th e m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch (as
Boa z di rect s th is co ur t to ap pl y ) or th e Mat hi s an al y si s (wh ic h Myers arg ue s ap pl ie s)
, th is co ur t m

us t lo ok to th e reco rd of co nv ic ti on to de te rm in e w h e t h e r Myers’

co nv ic ti on for ter ro ris ti c th reat en in g i s a c rime of v io le nc e.

C.

A rev ie w of pe rm is si bl e m at eri al s sh ows Myers was co nv ic te d of th reat en in g
to ki ll hi s g irl fri en d. Th e “ Fel on y Inf or m at io n” ch arg es :

wit h th e pu rp os e of te rro riz in g an ot he r pe r s o n , h e th reat en ed to cau se de at h or se rio us ph y si cal in ju ry or su bs ta nt ia l pr op ert y da m ag e to

an ot he r pe rs on , in vi ol at io n of ACA § 5- 13 -3 01
, to -w it : The Defen da nt th reat en ed to ki ll hi s gi rlf rie nd whi l e h o l d i ng a kn ife to he r th ro at , ag ai ns t t he pe ace a nd di gn it y of t he Sta te of Ark an sa s. 2

In Na nc e v. St at e , th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t sa id : “ ‘[W ]here bu t o n e 2 of fen se is ch arg ed bu t th e se ve ral m od es pr ov id ed by th e st at ut e by whi ch it m ay be

co m m it te d are ch arg ed in th e di sju nc ti ve , th e in di ct m en t is go od

. The reas on is th at th e ch arg e is ba se d up on on e of fen se , an d t h e di ffer en t m od es of co m m it ti ng it pr ov id ed in th e st at ut e are ba se d up on th e sa m e tra ns act io n.’” Nan ce , 91 8 S.W .2d 11 4, 12 3 (Ark

. 19 96 ), qu ot in g Ki rk pa tr ic k v. St

at e , 9 S.W .2d 57 4, 57 5 (Ark

. 19 28 ). Thi s st at em en t do es no t ch an ge th e co nc lu si on he re. Fi rs t, th e co ur t was di sc us si ng th e cap it al m

ur de r, no t te rro ris ti c th reat en in g, st at ut e. Seco nd
, th is is no t a cas e whe re

“ se ve ral m od es pro vi de d i n t he st at ut e . . . are ch arg ed in th e d is jun ct iv e.”

-7

-The “ Sen te nc in g Ord er” co nf irms th at Myers was co nv ic te d of th reat en in g h i s
g i r l f r ie nd

. Thi s co nv ic ti on is a vi ol en t fel on y un de r § 92 4( e) be cau se it “ ha s as a n el em en t th e

. . . th reat en ed us e of ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t th e pe rs on of an ot he r.” 18
U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (i)

. Se e Bo az , 55 8 F.3 d at 80 7. Se e al so Unit ed St at es . v. Ri ce , 81 3 F.3 d 70 4, 70 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (“ Si nc e th e vi ol at io n ‘has as an el em en t th e us e,
at t e mp t e d u s e , or th reat en ed us e of ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t th e pe rs on of an ot he r,’
U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2
, we co nc lu de th at it was a cri m e of vi ol en ce.”)

. The di st ric t co ur t
pr op erl y co un te d Myers’ fir st -d eg ree te rro ris ti c th reat en in g co nv ic ti on as a vi ol en t fel on y

.

II.

Myers al so arg ue s hi s A r k an sa s se co nd -d eg ree ba tt ery co nv ic ti on is no t a vi ol en t fel on y un de r th e ACCA. The p a r t i es ag ree Myers was co nv ic te d un de r

su bs ect io n (a)( 1)

. At th e t i me of hi s co nv ic ti on , Ark an sa s Co de Ann ot at ed §
5- 13 -2 02 (a) s ai d:

(a) A p ers on co m

m it s b at te ry

in th e se co nd de gr ee i f:

(1 ) W it h th e pu rp os e of cau si ng ph y si cal i n ju r y to an ot he r pe rs on , th e p ers on cau se s s eri ou s p hysic al in jury to an y

pe rs on ;
(2 ) W it h th e pu rp os e of cau si ng ph y si cal in jury to an ot he r pe rs on , th e pe rs on cau se s ph y si cal in jury to an y pe rs on by m ean s of a de ad ly w eap on ot he r th an a fi rear m ;

. . . .

Ark

. Cod e Ann. § 5- 13 -2 02 (a ) (2 0 07 ). Po st Mat hi s , th is co ur t he ld th at “ th e Ark an sa s se co nd de gr ee ba tt ery st at ut e is di vi si bl e,” an d th e m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al

ap pr oa ch ap pl ie s. Ri ce , 81 3 F

. 3 d a t 70 5. Po st Mat hi s , th is co ur t al so he ld th at a

co nv ic ti on un de r su bs ect io n (a)( 2) —i de nt ic al to su bs ect io n (a)( 1) ex cep t req ui rin g

-8

-us e of “ a de ad ly weap on ot he r th an a fir earm ”—i s a vi ol en t fel on y un de r th e ACCA.

Se e Wi ns to n , 84 5 F .3d at 8 78

.

Myers arg ue s W

in st on is di st in gu is ha bl e be cau se su bs ect io n (a)( 2) req ui res th e

us e of a d e a dl y weap on

. Howev er, W in st on di d no t ho ld th at a co nv ic ti on un de r

su bs ect io n (a)( 2) was a vi ol en t fel on y be cau se it req ui red th e us e of a de ad ly weap on

. Rat he r, it he ld th at th e st at ut e req ui red a sh owi ng of ph y si c a l in jury, whi ch is

eq ui va le nt to ph y si cal fo rce. Id

. Bec au se su bs ect io n (a)( 1) , l i k e s ub se ct io n (a)( 2)
,

“ ha s as an el em en t th e us e, at te m pt ed us e, or th reat en ed us e of ph y si cal fo rce” ag ai ns t

an ot he r pe rs on , 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 2) (B)( i), it is a vi ol en t fel on y un de r th e ACCA.
Se e id

. The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y co un te d Myers’ se co nd -d eg ree ba tt ery co nv ic ti on

as a vi ol en t fe lo ny.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-