## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08
- 3975 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. N ATHANIE L L. C APLER, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 3:07- cr -30083

—Jean ne E . Sc ott, Judge . N o. 09
- 2513 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D ONTE L. S TEW ART, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 4:06- cr -40006- 001

—J. Phil Gilbert, Judge . A RGUED A UGUS T 3, 2010

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 1, 20112 N os. 08
- 3975 & 09
- 2513

D onte L. St ew art, the s econd ap pell ant i n thi s consol idated 1 appe al, ha s be enr el ea s ed fro m prison an d i s no l onge r i n the cust od y ofthe Bu rea u o fPris ons. H is l aw yers have m oved t o di s m i s s h i s a ppe a l a s m oo t . Th a tm ot i oni s g r a nt e d. Befo re B AUER, M A NI ON, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . N athani el Cap l er ple ade d gu il ty to tw o drug o ffen ses and w as sente nced to 141 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent b ase d i n parton an I l l i noi s co nvi cti on for unlawfulr est ra i nt thatthe dist ri ct c ourtdeem ed to be a “ c r i me o fv i o l e nc e ” wi thin the me a ningo fU. S
. S
. G. § 4 B 1.2
. See 720 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5/ 10-3. O n appeal he c ha l l e ng e s o nl y the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s c o nc l us i o n that hi s pri orco nvi cti on i s a cr i m e o fvi ol ence. 1 W e a ffi rm . The distr i ct c ourt ’ s r uling fi nd s di re ct su ppo r t i n o urde cisio ns i n U nite d State s v. Wallace, 32 6 F. 3d 881, 88 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) , a nd U ni t e d S t at e s v . Bil l ups , 536 F.3d 574, 584 (7th Cir. 2008). Wal lace a na l y ze d the I l l i no i s st atut e i n que st i o n an d c o nc l ude d tha t th e offense i s a cr i m e o fvi ol ence. Bil l ups r e a c h e d th e s a me conclus ion abo ut the cl ose l y a nal ogo us cr i m e o ff al se im p risonm en t in W iscons in. N otw ithsta nd ing C ap ler’ s effor ts to ch all e n g e the va li d ity of Wa lla ce a nd Bil l ups , th es e dec i si o ns r emai n s o und a nd t o g ethe r c o nt r o l the ou tc om e o f th is a p p ea l.
I . B a c kg r o und C a p l e r s o l d c r a c kco ca i n e t o a p o l i c e i n f o r ma n t . He was ar r es te d and pl ea ded g ui l tyto two co unt s o fdi st r ibuti o n. See21 U
. S. C. § 841( a) ( 1)
. The dis tr i ct c ourtse ntencedN os. 08
- 3975 & 09
- 2513 3 hi m as a car eero ffender to a t ota l o f14 1 m onths’ i m p rison m en t. See U .S.S.G . § 4B1. 1. The car eer - offender desi gnation is bas ed on tw o I ll inois c o n v ic t ions, one f or delivery o fa c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e a n d th e o th e r f o ru n l awful r es t r a i n t . C a p l e r ’ s a p p o i n t e d l a wy e r i n i t i a l l y c a s tt he appeal as f ri vol ous and m ove d t o w i thdraw un der A nders v. Ca li

forni a , 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1967 ) , but w e deni ed th atmot i o n a fte r c o nc l udi ngthata n a ppea l a sk i ngus to re vi si t Wa lla ce w ou ld not be frivol ou s. C a p le r’s att or ney ha s no w br i efed that ar gum ent o n the m er i ts. In d eci ding i fa convi cti on i s f ora cri m e o fvi ol ence, w e loo k t o t h e s ta tu t o r y e l e m en ts an d th e m an n er in w h ich th e o ffen se o r d in ar ily is c om m itt ed
. U nited Sta tes v. So nn enberg, 628 F.3d 36 1, 36 4 (7 t h C ir. 20 10 ); U nited Stat e s v. D i s m uke, 593 F.3d 58 2, 59 1 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ), p e t i t i on fo r cert. filed, 79 U
. S. L.W
. 30 62 ( U
. S. J uly19 , 20 10) ( N o. 10
- 10 9)
. As r el ev an t her e, a “ cr i m e o fv i o l en ce ” i s an y offense punishab l e byi m pri sonm ent e xceedi ng o ne ye ar that “has as an el em ent the use, at tem pted use, o r thre aten ed u se of p h ys i c a l forc e a ga in st th e p er so n of an ot h er ,” U
. S. S. G. § 4 B1. 2( a) ( 1) , o r “i s bur gl ar y o fa dw el l i ng, arson , or ex tortion, involves u se of exp los iv e s, or otherw i se i nvol ves con d u c t that pr ese nts a se ri ous pot enti al ri sk ofphysic ali nj ury to anothe r, ” id . § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2). In I l l i no i s a per so n “c o m m i ts th e o ffen se o f un lawful re str ai nt wh en he orsh e kn owingl y without l ega l author i ty detai ns ano ther
. ” 7 20 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5/ 10- 3( a) ( 2010 )
. The use orthr eat ened use of for c e i s no t a n ele m en t, see P eoplev. Brials , 73 2 N
. E.2 d 1109, 11 19 (Ill. A p p . C t. 20 00 ); P eop le v. B o w en , 60 9 N .E .2d 34 6, 36 1 (Ill. A pp . Ct
. 1 9 9 3 ) , s o the c r i me a s de fi ne d in I l l i no i s do es4 N os. 08
- 3975 & 09
- 2513
no t s a t i s fy s ub s e c t i o n ( a ) ( 1 )
. Ou r a na l y s i s thu s s hi f ts to su bsec tion (a)( 2). U nl aw ful re str ai nt is n ot o ne o fthe speci fi c cr i m es l i ste d i n the fi rs t par t o f§ 4B 1.2 (a)( 2) , so to co unt as a vi ol ent fel ony, the cri m e m ust f al l withi n the re si du al claus e, w hich covers offenses th at “oth erw ise i nv olve[] conduct t h at pre sents a ser i ous pot enti alr i sk ofphysi cal i nj ury to another
. ” Thi s r equi re s a deter m i nati on that th e o ffen se is “r ou gh ly si m ilar ” t o t h os e t h at are sp ec ific a l ly en u m er at ed
. See B ega y v . U nited Sta tes , 55 3 U
. S. 13 7, 1 43 (20 08 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Woods , 57 6 F
. 3d 400, 40 4 ( 7th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )
. Be f o r e the S up r e me Co ur tde c i de d Beg ay , w e h ad an aly ze d th e re sid u al c lau s e b y a sk in g on ly w hetherthe cri m e in que stio n typi cal l y e ncom passes conduct cr eat i ng a ri sk ofinj ury si m i l arto the enum er ate d c rim es . Se e, e . g. , Uni t e d S t at e s v . M athe ws , 45 3 F
. 3d 830, 83 6- 37 (7t h C ir. 20 06 ); Uni t e d S t at e s v . F r an kl in , 30 2 F
. 3d 722, 72 3 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ). Bega y add ed a se c ond l eve l o f anal ysi s, a si m i l ar - i n-k i nd i nquir y, w hi ch ask s whether th e c r i me a s o r d i n a r i l y c o mmi t t e d r e fl e c t s t h e s a me “pu r po se ful, v iol en t, a nd a g g r es si ve ” co nduc t as the list ed cr im es . 553 U .S. at 1 44 -45 . On l y if a c rim e is sim ilar bo t h i n k in d an d d eg re e o f risk p os ed ca n it q u alify as a c rim e o f vio len c e u n d er § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2). Id. A fter Bega y we he l d i n Wo o ds that w hen the sta tute in qu es tio n is d ivis ible

— w hen i t define s al ter nati ve me a n s o fc o m m i t t i n ga c r i m e , s o m e v i o l e n ta n d s o me not

— the d istri ct c ourtm ay expand i ts cate gor i cal i nquir y b y e xam i ni ng a l i m ited s et ofaddit i onal m at er i al s to det er m i ne whethe r the de fen dan t was c o n-N os. 08
- 3975 & 09
- 2513 5

v i c t e d of th e v iole n t v er sio n of th e c rim e. Se eWoods , 57 6 F. 3d at 403 . T h e I l l i noi s s tatute doe s no t defi ne al ter nati ve m ea ns o fc o m m i tt i ngthe c r i m e o funl awful r es tr ainta nd thus i s no t “di vi sible” as we ex pl aine d the conce pt i n Woods , i d. a t4 0 4
- 0 7
. T h e o ffe n s e i s a c r i me ofvi ol en c e, th en, o nl y i fi t i s ca teg or i cal l y s i m i l arto burgl ar y, ar son, exto rt i on, and cr i m es i nvol vi ng the use of e x p los ive s. Se eBegay, 553 U .S. a t 14 4-4 5; D i s m uke, 59 3 F
. 3 d a t5 9 4; U nited Sta tes v. Ha rt, 57 8 F
. 3d 674, 68 0- 81 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 09 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Evans , 5 7 6 F
. 3 d 7 6 6 , 76 8- 69 ( 7th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )
. T hi s s i mi l a r i t y wa s f o un d t o be p re se n t in Wallace, 32 6 F
. 3d at 887, a pre- Begayd ec isio n c on c lu d in g t h at a vio lat ion of th e Illino is u n law fu lrest ra i nt st atute ge nera l l y wil l car rya ri sk ofvi ol ence. W e hav e no t r eev al uated thatposi ti on s i nce Bega y, b ut w e hav e co ncl ud ed post- Bega yth a tth e a n a l a g o u s c r i me off al se i m pri sonm ent a s defi ned by W i sco nsi n sta tute is c at eg or ica lly vio len t. See W IS . S T AT . § 9 40 .30 ; Bil l ups , 536 F. 3d at 584.
I I . Discussi on The sol e i ssue i n thi s a pp eali s wheth er unl aw ful re straint as de fi ne d by I ll inois l aw f all s w ithin § 4B 1.2( a)’s residu al cl au se for crim es roug hly sim il ar t o t he enu m era t e d o ffe n s e s . C a p l e r a r g u e s th a tth e s t a t u t e e n c o mpasses to o m uch nonvi ol en t c on du ct fori t t o be c ate
gor i cal l y l abel ed as a vi ol ent fel ony. A l though Capl er concedes that Wa lla ce a nd B illup s ar e o n po i nt, he co nt en ds th atb oth d eci si o ns a r e i nc o r r ec t an d ur g es us to r ec o nsider th em i n l i g hto fmor e r ec en t o pi ni o ns6 N os. 08
- 3975 & 09
- 2513 f r o m thi s co ur t. Be ca us e Capl erpr es er ve d thi s ar g um en t for ap p ea l, ou r re vie w is p len ar y. Se eU ni t e d S t ates v . Cli nt on , 591 F.3d 96 8, 97 2 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ), cert. denied , 79 U
. S. L
. W
. 3202 (U
. S. Oc t. 4, 2010 ) (N o. 10-5137). I n Wallacew e h eld thatunl aw ful re str ai nt as defi ned i n Illino i s i s a vi ol ent fel ony f orpurposes o fthe A rm ed C ar ee r C rim in al A c t, see 18 U
. S. C. § 9 24( e) ( 2) ( B), wh i ch tr ac ks th e lan gu ag e in § 4 B 1.2 (a). Wallace, 32 6 F
. 3d at 887. A pp l yi ng the pre - Bega y cate gor i calapproa ch, we re aso ned that unlawfulr est ra i nt gen eral l y pr eci pit ate s a r i sk of vi o l en ce , whethe r i n the i nitial r es tr ainto r a r es ul ting c on fro n ta tio n be tw ee n vic tim an d as sa ilan t. Id
. A l though we di d no t ex pr es sl y c o nc l ude tha t unl awfulre st r aint is “s i m i l ari n k i nd” t o the c r i m es e numer at ed bef ore th e r esi du alcl ause ( that re quir em ent was added in B egay ) , o ur a nal ysi s o fthe ri sk ofi nj ury str ongl y i m pli es th at th is s or t o f ca te go ric al s im ilar ity is p re se n t. Id
. Our de ci si o n i n Wallace, th en , is n o t a d ea d let te r. If a ny thingi ta nt i c i pa t e d Bega y eve n though w e di d not ar ti cul at e th e an alysi s i n pr ec i se l y the s ame t er m s as the sta nd ar d l ate r announced b y the S up re m e Cour t. Li ke an y p re c ed en tia l d ec isio n, Wa lla ce stan d s un tilw e are giv en goo d rea so n t o o v e r ru le it. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Sy k es , 59 8 F.3d 33 4, 33 8 (7th C ir . 2 01 0), cert. gra nted , 79 U .S.L .W . 319 4 (U .S. Sep t. 28 , 201 0) (N o. 09 -11 31 1); Tate v. Show boat M arina Casino P ’s hip , 431 F. 3d 580, 58 3 ( 7th Ci r . 20 05 )
. W e i nv i te d Capl er to i den ti fy a r ea so n, b ut h is r esp ons e is sim p ly to w rite off Wa lla ce o n t he grou nd that the op inion w as issue d five years before Bega y . I n s t e a d , h e mo s t l y f o c u s e s o n t r y i n gt o o v e r c o meN os. 08
- 3975 & 09
- 2513 7 B i l l ups , b ut tha t s t r a t e g y i s s ho r t s i g ht e d. Ca pl e r ha s not o ffer ed a pr i nc i pl ed ba si s to o ve r tu r n Wallace, an d as w e d iscus s below , his l e n gth y eff ort to i nd irectly un d erm i ne Wa lla ce by chal l engi ng Bil l ups i s unpers uasi ve. I n B illup s w e m ade expl i ci t what w e l eft t o i nfe re nce i n Wallace : Res train ing an oth er against h is w il l, ap art f ro m car ry i ng a ser i ous r i sk of i nj ury, i s a n agg re ssi ve ac t c at eg or ica lly sim ilar to th e c rim es en u m er at ed in § 4B1
. 2( a)(2)
. The W i sc o ns i n s ta tu te a na l y ze d i n Bil l ups pr ovi des that“[ w ] hoeve r i ntenti onal l y c onfi nes o r re str ain s anothe r w i thout the per son’ s co nsent and w i th k n o wl e d g e th a t h e o r s h e h a s n o l a wfu l a u th o r i t y t o do so i s guil ty ofa Clas s H fe l ony. ” W IS . S T AT . § 9 40 .30 . A se par at e ch apt ero fthe c o de, § 93 9. 22 ( 48 ) , defi ne s “wi th o ut cons en t” to m ean “ no co nsent i n f act” o r conse nt gi ven because the as sai l ant threa tened vi ol ence, o r because the vict im d i d not g i ve knowing conse nt, ei therby re aso n “o fi gnor ance o r m i stake off act oro fl aw o ther than cr i m i nal law or by re aso n ofyo uth ordefecti ve me n t a l c o n d i t i o n, w h e th e r p e r ma n e n to r t e mp o r a r y . ” We exam i ned the e l em ents of§ 940. 30 and the defi ni ti on of “w i thout conse nt” i n concl ud i ng that th e c onduct encom passed b y the st atute i s ca teg or i cal l y v i ol ent. Bil l ups , 53 6 F
. 3d at 578- 79. B illup s re ad the W i sco nsi n sta tute to re ach fi ve types ofvi cti m s. The firs t f our var i ati ons ofthe offense

— a no nc o ns en tingv i ct i m , a v i ctim w ho c o ns en te d t o the confi nem ent out of fear, a vi cti m w h o consent ed because she bel i eve d the as sailan t had autho ri ty to co nfi ne her, a nd a v i ct i m who was t r i ck ed i nt o c o n-8 N os. 08
- 3975 & 09
- 2513
se nt i ng

— carry a su bsta nt ialri sk of p hy sical injury be ca us e ea chs ce na r i o s et s th e st ag e f o r a v i o l en t co nfro n ta tio n be tw ee n vic t i m an d as sa ilan t. Id. at 58 0-8 1. In th e fift h va ria tio n w h er e t h e v ic t i m i s le ga lly in c ap ab le o fgiving co ns en t, we r ec o g ni ze d tha t th e r i sko fc o nf ro ntati on, wh i l e l ower, i s no t in su b sta nti albec ause the pot enti alr em ai ns thatthe vi cti m co uld be i nj ured tr yi ng to esca pe. W e never deci ded w hether th e fi fth v a r i a t i o n i n v o l v e s a s e r i o u s r i s k ofi nj u r y b e c a u s e we w ere sa ti sfi ed th ata c r i m e wi thf o uro uto ffi ve da nger ous m odes of c om m i ssi on i s ca teg or i cal l y v i ol ent. Id
. at58 2. Mo r e o v e r, we d is t ingu ished a sub sect ion of I nd iana’s cri m i na l-confi nem ent s tatute that had be en hel d to be a n on vio len t fe lon y. See U nited Sta tes v. G ilbert, 46 4 F
. 3d 6 74 , 6 7 6
- 8 2 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 )
. T h e I n d i a n a o ffe n s e c r i mi nal i zes re m ova l fro m on e p lac e t o a n ot h er by tric k, see I ND . C OD E § 35
- 42
- 3- 3( a) ( 2) , and i n B illup s we wer e unwi l l i n gt o a s s u me

— a t le as t w ith ou t e m p iric al e vidence

— th atde ce i vings o m eo ne i nt o c ha ng ing l o ca ti o ns p os es th e s am e ris k a s in vo lu n ta ry co n fin em en t. Bil l ups , 536 F. 3d at 582. W e went on to obs er ve th at t h e W i sc on sin st at u te c r i m in aliz es co n d u c t t h at is “in h er en tly m o r e co er ci ve ” th anthe c o nduc t wi th in t he s wee p o fthe I nd i ana s tatute, since i n W i sco nsi n the vi cti m m ust be co nfi ne d, no t m er ely tr i ck ed i nt o moving . On th i s po i nt o uro pi ni o n i n B illup s ci tes approvi ngly to Wallacea nd n o t e s t h at th e c rim e o f u n law fu l res tr ain t in Il lin ois is “a kin ” t o fa lse im p ris on m en t a s d efin ed by W isc on sin
. Id
. Because B illup s anal yze s a st at u te thati s cl ose l y a nal ogous to the I l l i noi s cr i m e o funl aw ful rest ra int, the re a-N os. 08
- 3975 & 09
- 2513 9 soni ng i n that deci si on provi de s p os t- Bega y supp or t f or o urho l di ngi n Wallace
. T he Wi s c o ns i n s t a t ut e a na l yze d i n Bil l ups i s s ubsta n tive l y ind i sti ngui shabl e fro m i ts Illino is c ou n te rp ar t. C o m pa re 720 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5/ 10- 3( a) ( 2010 ) ( “A pe r so n c om m it s th e o ffen se o funl awful re str ai nt wh en he orshe kn ow i ngl y without l ega l a u th or ity d et ain s a n ot h er .”), w it h W IS . S T AT . § 9 4 0
. 30 ( “W hoeve r i ntenti onal l y c onfi nes o r re str ai ns ano ther w i thout the per son’ s co nsent and w i th kno w l edge that he or sh e has no la w fu l a u th ority to d o so i s guilty ofa C las s H felon y.” ). O n e m in or d if f e r e n c e is th at W isc on sin m ak es no nc o ns en t an ex pr es s r equi r ementa nd de fi ne s th e phr as e bys ta tu te , whi l e th e I l l i no i s o ffen se i s si l en t about conse nt. I l l i noi s ca sel aw , however, sho w s that non co n sen t is an i m p li cit requ irem en t, its contou rs shaped by s tat e co m m on law that appear s t o adopt a c om m on -se n se u n d er st an d in g of th e t e rm . Se ePe opl ev. H unt, 5 02 N. E. 2d 46 4, 4 66
- 67( I l l
. App. Ct. 19 86 ) ( r ev er sing convi cti on f orunl aw ful re str ai nt wh er e S tat e f ai l ed to pr o ve de fen dan t’ s k no wl edg e th atv i ct i m was too i nto x ica te d to effe c tiv ely co n se n t); P eoplev. Kittl e, 48 9 N
. E.2 d 481, 48 4-85 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 19 86) ( concl ud i ng tha t un l a wfulr e s t r a i nti s a l e s s e r - i nc l ud e d c r i me o fk i dna p p ing b y f rau d or d eceit); P eop le v. Wa rner, 42 4 N
. E.2 d 747, 74 9- 50 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 19 81) ( up hol ding convi cti on f orunl aw ful re str ai nt wh er e re strai nt o fchi l dren was ac h iev ed by th re at of p h ys ica l p u n ish m en t); cf. 720 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5/ 12- 17( a) ( defini ng co nsent i n conte xt o f sexualas saul t a s “ f re el y gi ven a gr eem ent”)
. But i fl ess concr ete , the defini ti on o fco nsent i n I l l i noi s doe s no t appear t o be a n y bro ader than thati n W i sco nsi n; nor10 N os. 08
- 3975 & 09
- 2513 does the c ri m e o funl aw fu l r est ra i nt appearto co ver an y for m s o fnonvi ol ent c onduct that w oul d not a l so be c ove re d by the W i sco nsi n sta tute. Fu rt h e r m o re , B illup s sta nd s a l one as the o nl y pos t

Bega y dec i si o n fr o m thi s co ur t i nv o l vingc r i m i na l c o nfi ne m en t, a nd i ts ho l di ngi s co nsiste ntwi thpr ev i o us d ec isio n s in te rp re tin g s i m ilar cr im es . See U nited Sta tes v. Fra nc o -Fern a nd ez , 51 1 F
. 3d 768, 771- 72 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( distingui shi ng nonvi ol ent s tat e o ffense ofchi l d abducti o n b y put at i ve f ather from v i o l en t o ffen se o funl awful r e s t r a int); G ilbert, 46 4 F
. 3d at 676- 82 ( decl i ni ng to apply Wa lla ce to s ubs ec ti o n o fIndi an a’ s cr i m i na l

- co nfi ne m en t st atut e i nv o l vi ng act i o n n o t ne ce ss ar i l y t ak enwi th o ut vic tim ’s c on se n t); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Hage now , 4 2 3 F
. 3 d 6 38, 64 4 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5)
. The ho l di ngi n B illup s als o fa lls i n l i ne with the wei ght o fautho ri ty f ro m o thercir cui ts. Befo re Beg ay s everalci rcui ts had exam i ned si m i l ar st atut es a nd un i f o r m l y c ha r ac te r i ze d the m a s vi ole nt c rim es . U ni t e d S t ate s v. Ri va , 44 0 F
. 3d 722, 72 3- 25 ( 5th Cir
. 20 06 ) (h oldi ng tha t Texas cr i m e o funl aw full y r estr a i ningp e r s o n un de r a g e 1 7i s c r i me o fv i o l e nc e u nd er re si du alcl ause of§ 4B1. 2( a)(2) bec ause offense i nvol ves serious p oten tial r is k of p hy sical injury); D i cks on v. As hc r oft, 3 46 F. 3d 44, 49
- 50 ( 2d Cir
. 20 03) ( hol ding that Ne w Y o r ko ffe n s e o funl a wfu l i mp r i s o n me n to fc o mp et en t ad u lt is c rim e o f vio len c e w ith in m ea n in g of Im m ig r at ion an d N at ion alit y A c t); U nited Sta tes v. Z a m o ra , 222 F. 3d 756, 7 64-65 ( 10th Cir
. 20 00) ( hol ding that N ew M ex i co c r i m e o ff al se i m pr i so nm en t i s vi o l en t fel o ny und e r § 4 B1
. 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) b e c a us e o f s ub s t a nt i a l r i s k o fvi olen c e); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Kapl ans ky, 42 F. 3d 3 20, 324 (6th Cir.N os. 08
- 3975 & 09
- 2513 11 1994 ). A fter Bega yno out- of-c irc uitpubli shed opi ni on h a s e v a l u a t e d a s t a t u t e c o mp a r a b l e t o th e I l l i n o i s c r i me ofunl aw ful re str ai nt, but the Thi rd C i rcui t in two unp ubl i sh ed o pi ni o ns ha s k eptwi ththe tr en d o fc ha r ac te r i zing cri m i nal co nfinem ent a s a cat ego ri cal l y v i ol ent c ri m e. See U nited Sta tes v . M cM iller, 37 6 F
. A pp ’ x 199 , 20 2- 03 (3d Cir. 2010); U nite d State s v. Sm it h , 28 4 F
. A pp ’ x 943 , 94 4- 45 (3d Cir. 2008). Capl er, no t su r pr i sing l y, s ee k s to o ve r tu r n Wa lla ce by ar gui ng tha t B illup s too was w ro ngl y deci ded , albei t af ter Bega y . S peci fi cal l y, he c on tends that B illup s sh ou ld b e d isr eg ar d ed be c au se w e d ec id ed it on the i ncor re ct as su m pti o n tha t th e W i sc o ns i n s ta tu te a t i ss ue was i ndi vi sibl e; tha t o ur opi ni o n i n B illup s i m proper l y a pp l i ed the Beg a y a n a lysis an d offered only conc lusory su p p ort for its h old in g; th at su b s e q u e n t d ec isio n s in th is c irc u it applying the cr i m e- of

- vi ol ence i nquir y c all B illup s i nto ques tio n ; and that B illup s sh o ul d b e r ea ss es se d i n l i g ht o fth e S u p r e me C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n i n C ha m bers v. U nited Sta tes , 129 S. Ct
. 687, 692-93 (2009 ). Befo re address i ng Caple r’ s chal l enges to Bil l ups , we m ust r eso l ve a thres hol d dispute o verhow to approach the quest i on o fwh at conduct ty pifi es the “ ord in ary ca se” of unlaw ful restraint. C ap ler insists tha t the “ord inary case ” o f u nl aw ful re str ai nt sho uld e ncom pass o nl y s epara te ly pu nish a ble i nstance s o fthe offense

— th at is, it s ho ul d e xc l ud e c a s e s i n whi c h a j ud g men to fc o nv i c t i on f o r u n l a wfu l r e s t r a i n t c a n n o t b e e n t e r e d b e c a u s e th e co nd uc t at issue su p p orts a sep arate con viction for a m or e s er i ous c ri m e, thus m aki ng unl aw ful re str aint a12 N os. 08
- 3975 & 09
- 2513 l ess er - i ncl ud ed offense. Se e, e . g. , Brials , 73 2 N
. E.2 d at 1 1 1 9; K it tl e, 489 N
. E
. 2d at 485. This argu m en t m isun d ersta nd s the cat ego ri calapproa ch, w hi ch ask s whether the elem ents o

f the o ffense or dinar i l y i n vol ve conduct th a t f alls w ith in th e s c op e o f th e re sid u al c lau se . See Ja m es v. U nited St a tes , 550 U .S. 19 2, 20 2 (2 00 7); So nn enberg, 62 8 F
. 3d at3 65
. W he th eri n the o r d inary ca se the offense c onduct can s up porta separ ate punishm ent i s o f no c o ns eque nc e; c o ur ts l o o ki ns te ad atthe c ond ucte nc o mp a s s e d w i th i n th e s t a t u t o r y d e fi n i t i o n o fth e c r i me to d et er m in e w h at an ord in ar y c as e is like. See U nited Sta tes v. G o o d p a s t ure, 59 5 F
. 3d 670, 67 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( “[ T]he Suprem e Cour t’ s quest i on i s what the o ffense as gener al l y c om m i tte d entai l s, notwh i ch offenses l ead to crim inal prosec ut ions.”). Capl erho l ds li ttl e ba cki n h i s at ta cko n B illup s. As a pre l i m i nary m att er, he c onte nd s that the Bil l ups an a l y s i s i s f l a w e d from th e o u ts et be c au se in ap p l y i ngthe c at eg o r i ca l a ppr o ac h, we di d no t tr ea t th e f al se- i m p ris onm ent s tatute a s di vi sibl e. H i s poi nt has som e a pp eal : W i sco nsi n law , which r equi re s that f al se i mp r i s o n me n to c c u r w i th o u tth e c o n s e n to fth e v i c t i m, pr o vi des f o urde fi ni ti o ns for“ wi th o utc o ns en t” a nd so w oul d a pp ear to cre ate seve ra l divi sibl e m ea n s of c om m i tt in g fa lse im p ris on m en t. W IS . S T AT . § 939.22(48). B ut even i f Bil l ups was m i sta ken in anal yzi ng the W i sco ns i n s ta tu te a s a w ho l e i ns te ad o ff o cus i ngo n the par ti culars ubs ec ti o ns o fthe de fi ni ti o n o f“ wi th o utc o nse nt, ” o urho l di ngi n Bil l ups

— th a tf a l s e i mpr i s o n me nt as gener al l y c om m i tte d car ri es a r i sk ofvi ol ence

— can st i l l i n f o r m o u r a n a l y s i s . T h e I l l i n o i s c r i me o fu n l a wfu lN os. 08
- 3975 & 09
- 2513 13
re str ai nt is in d ivis ible ; th at is, it r es em b les th e W isc on sin fals e-im p ris on m en t s ta tu te as w e c on c ep tu aliz ed it in Bil l ups . Cap l erco ntends that B i l l ups bungl ed the Begay i nqu iry

—both i n term s of its as sessm en t of th e crim e’s si m i l ar ity t o the l i ste d offenses i n the re si du alcl ause and its as ses sm ent o fthe ri sks pose d by unl aw ful re str ai nt. W i th r espectto the sim i l ar - i n-k i nd i nquir y, Cap l erco ntends that B illup s offers only con c lusory su p p or t f o r th e h old in g t h at u n law fu l res tr ain t t yp ica lly in vo lve s v iole n t a n d a gg re ss ive be h av ior. N otso . In B illup s w e concl ud ed that re str ai ni ng a perso n ag ai nst hi s wil l ge nera l l y c re ate s a si gni fi c ant r i sk ofvi ol ence, eve n w here r est ra in t i s no t a ccom pli shed by f or ce. 53 6 F. 3d at5 80
- 81
. Tha t det er m i na ti o n i nf o r m ed th e sim il ar-i n-kind an alysis j us t as it d id th e risk-ofinju r y an aly sis
. Se eD i s m uke, 5 93 F
. 3d at5 94 ( ex pl aini ng that cate gor i cal l y v i ol ent fel oni es ar e those t h at carr y a ge n u i n e ris k of v iole n c e); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pat t e rs on , 57 6 F.3 d 43 1, 44 2 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ), c e r t . d enied , 7 8 U
. S
. L
. W. 3438 ( U
. S. Ja n . 25 , 20 10) ( N o. 0 9- 7158 ) ( expla i ni ng tha t ri sk of viol ence need onl y “ att end” a v i ol ati on o f p red icate crim e for p urp oses of cri m e-of- viol en ce inq uiry). D es c rib in g t h e W isc on sin offe n se as “ i n h e re n tly
. . . co er ci ve , ” o urde ci si o n i n Bil l ups go es on t o draw para l l el s be tw een f al se i m pri sonm ent a nd the l i ste d crim es of extortion an d bu rglary

— cri m es that can be com m itted i n a n onv iol en t m an ne r and ye t s t il l carry a s ubstanti alr i sk ofhar m . 53 6 F
. 3d at 583. C ap ler ins ist s t h at rec en t p re c ed e n t in th is c irc u it c a l l s i nt o que s t i o n the s i mi l a r - i n- k i nd anal y s i s . I n s up -14 N os. 08
- 3975 & 09
- 2513 p o r th e r e l i e s o n s e v e r a l r e ce nt cas e s i n wh i c h we va ca te d c r i m e- o f

- vi o l en ce de te r m i na ti o ns b ec au se th e p re d ica te st at u t e s c ov er ed n on vio len t c on d u c t. Se eGoodpa sture, 595 F.3d at67 2; Ha rt, 57 8 F.3d at 6 79 ; Evans , 57 6 F.3 d at76 9; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Te m pl e t on , 543 F. 3d 378, 38 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08). N one ofthes e ca ses , however, address es un law ful restraint; nor d oes an y case p urp ort to m od ify th e l eg ali nqui r y f o l l o wed i n Bi l l u ps . These case s do not, as Ca pl ers ug g es ts , s upp ortthe pr o po si ti o n tha t ani ndi vi sibl e st atut e ca n ne ve r be ca te g o r i ze d as a vi o l en t cri m e i fi t e ncom passes som e non viol en t con d uc t. R ath er, the pr edi cate o ffenses i n thes e ca ses si m plyi nvol ved re l ati vel y pass i ve conduct, co nd uct t oo di ssi m i l arto war r an t co m par i so n wi thunl awfulr es tr aint . F o r e xam p le, Temple t on a nd Hart i nvol ved es cape o ffenses that co ve r s uchpa ss i ve , no na g g r es si ve c o nduc t as w al k i ng aw ay from n on se c u re cu st od y, s e eTe m pl e t on , 54 3 F
. 3d at 38 1; Ha rt, 5 7 8 F
. 3 d a t6 7 7, a nd G o o d pa sture exam i ned a st atut e pr o hibi tingl ewd a nd las ci vi o us c o nduc t i nv o l v i n g a p er so n u n d er fou rt ee n, see Go o dp a sture, 59 5 F
. 3 d a t6 7 2
. A n d th o ug h t he a g g r a v a t e d

-b a t t e r y c r i me d eem ed no nv i o l en t i n E va ns wo u l d a p p e a r c l o s e r t o t he m ar k, the o ut co m e o ftha t ca se i s m i slead ing be ca us e th e g o ve r nm en t g av e i t away by f ai l i ng to ar g ue that the pr edi ca te c ri m e o fc o nv i ct i o n ( i ns ul tingo r pr o vo k i ng p h ys ica l co n ta c t w ith a p re gn an t w om an ) i s ch ar ac te ris tic ally vio len t a n d ag re ss ive
. Se eEvans , 57 6 F
. 3d at 769. A s for the seco nd parto fthe Bega y i nquir y that f ocuse s o n the po te n tialf orphysi cali nj ury, Caple r ar gues th at B illup s a nd Wa lla ce shoul d be r eco nsi dered inl i g hto fthe S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec i si o n i n C ha m bers , 12 9N os. 08
- 3975 & 09
- 2513 15 S. Ct. at69 2- 93. N oting tha t C ha m bers p lac es a n e m p h as is on e m pir i caldata in the anal ysi s o fpote nti alr i sk, Caple r appears to conte nd that C h a m bers cal l s into questi on the v al i dity o fany eval uati on co nd uct ed witho ut bene

fit of sta ti sti cs. Bu t Cap l er can poi nt to no l angu ag e in Cham b e rs re q ui r i ng the use of e m p i ri caldata; nordoes he ci te a federa l deci si on i nter preting C ha m bers as d oing so. The S upr eme Co ur t i n C ha m bers m ayha ve e nco ur ag ed th e us e o fs ta ti st i ca l da ta i n de te r m ining w he th e r a n o ffen se carries a ri sk of inj ury, but the C ou rt d oe s n otreq u ire it. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Al exander, 609 F.3 d 12 50 , 125 6-5 7 (1 1t h C ir. 20 10 ); see also So nn e n berg, 628 F. 3d at 366 ( “[ I ] n the abse nce o fdetai l ed sta tis ti cal i n f o r ma t i o n th a ti s u n l i k e l y t o b e a v a i l a b l e , th e b e s twe can do is u s e c o m m on sen se an d exp erience to det erm ine th e v a r iety ofcrim es a statu te w ou ld cove r . . . . ”); Welch v. U nited Sta tes , 604 F.3d 408 , 424 (7th C ir. 2010), pe t i tio n fo r cert. filed, 79 U
. S. L.W
. 31 29 ( Se pt. 1, 20 10) ( N o. 10
- 314) ( post- Cham b ers case cond uc ting risk- ofinj u ry a n a l y s i s w ith ou t d at a); Patt e rs on , 57 6 F
. 3d at 442 (sam e). Cap l erm ai ntai ns that C ha m bers d islo d ge d c e rt ain pr ec ede nt s unde r l y i ngthi s co ur t’ s ho l di ngi n Wallace, ca st i ngfur th erdo ubto n the de ci si o n. I n Wa lla ce we c ite d tw o es c ap e c a s e s, U nite d State s v. Franklin , 30 2 F
. 3 d 7 2 2 , 7 2 5 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) , a nd U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bry ant, 3 10 F. 3d 550, 55 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) , as exam ple s o f c at eg or ica lly vio le n t offe n se s t h at en c om p as s p ot en tia lly h ar m fu l co n d u c t. S e eWal l ac e, 3 26 F
. 3d at8 87
. Our focus w as on the crim e of esca p e and the d an gers16 N os. 08
- 3975 & 09
- 2513 at te n d an t t o flee in g c on f i n e m en t. Id . Th e h old in g in C ha m bers , how ever, conce rned only the crim e of fai lure to rep ort

— an o ffense the Su prem e Cour t di sti ngui shed fro m tra d itio n al e sc ap e a s b ein g fa r l e s s lik ely to res u lt in h ar m . C ha m bers , 12 9 S
. Ct. at69 1. A s y et anothe r basi s f orat tack i ng Wallace, Ca pl erc o nte nds that th e dec i si o n i s i nc o ns i st en t wi th Hage now , 42 3 F .3 d a t 644, w hich hold s tha t one p art of I nd iana’s crim i nal

- confi nem ent s tatute i s no t a vi ol ent fel ony. Thi s ar g um en t ha s no mer i t. W e addr es se d the a ppar en t te ns i o n b etwee n Wa lla ce a nd Hage now i n Gil bert, 4 64 F. 3d at6 82 , a nd the n a g ain i n Bil l ups , 536 F. 3d at 58 2. T hese dec i si o ns f o r ec l o se the ne ed f o r fur th erdi sc us si o n. I n the e nd w e ar e l eft wi thno r ea so n t o que st i o n the con tinu ing validity of Wa ll a ce a nd Bil l ups . As a f ai th ful ap p li cation of Begay t o a clo se ly a n alo go u s c rim e, Bil l ups l en ds su pport to o urho l di nghe r e. Buto url en g th y d efense of B illup s s ho ul d no t di s t r a c t f o c us f ro m Wallace, the onl y decis ion i n thi s ci rcui t that has an al y ze d the I l l i no i s cr i m e o funl awfulr es tr aint, a nd acco rdi ngl y, the deci si on th at contro l s the o utcom e o f th is app eal. For the reason s w e hav e exp lai ne d , w e are sa ti sfi ed that Wa lla ce s ur v i v e d Bega y, tha t th e dec i si o n’s an aly sis i s in harm ony w i th the pre sent- da y a pp ro ach o f the S up r e me Co ur t, a nd tha ti t s h o l di ngr e mai ns s o un d. The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

4- 1- 11