Where a state statute explicitly defines 'burglary' in a way that does not require proof of an intent to commit a crime, and thus lacks an element necessary to satisfy the Armed Career Criminal Act's generic definition of 'burglary,' is that facial overbreadth enough to demonstrate that the crime is non-generic, or must a federal defendant also prove that the state has convicted someone who did not, in fact, harbor that intent?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Where a state statute explicitly defines “burglary” in a way that does not require proof of an intent to commit a crime, and thus lacks an element necessary to satisfy the Armed Career Criminal Act’s generic definition of “burglary,” 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is that facial overbreadth enough to demonstrate that the crime is non-generic, or must a federal defendant also prove that the state has convicted someone who did not, in fact, harbor that intent? 2. The ACCA defines “serious drug offense” to include state offenses “involving manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)Gi) (emphasis added). Does a state offense “involv[e]” distribution of a “controlled substance” where it prohibits a bare offer to sell drugs, even where the suspect has no drugs, no intent to sell drugs, and no ability to obtain drugs? ce) DIRECTLY