when-to-use-categorical-approach

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Clarification is needed to unite the Circuits in determining when to use the “Categorical Approach” defined in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) or the “Modified Categorical Approach” as more recently set out in Mathis v United States, 136 S. Ct 2243 (2016). Specifically, whether a conviction for Witness Retaliation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513(a)(1)(1988), which states: “[W]/hoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another person or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate against any person for” being a witness, party or informant in federal proceedings may be fined and imprisoned for up to ten years,” involves alternate elements or enumerates various factual means of committing a single element. 2. Whether every knowing or intentional causation of bodily injury necessarily involves the use of “violent force” sufficient to constitute a violent felony under Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(G)? Specifically, whether a conviction for Witness Retaliation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513(a)(1)(1988), which states: “[W]/hoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another person or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate against any person for” being a witness, party or informant in federal proceedings may be fined and imprisoned for up to ten years,” constitutes a violent felony under the force clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e)(2)(B)G)? This causation issue was left unresolved in this Court’s ruling in United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157, 170 (2014).