Whether the categorical approach requires courts to limit the plain language of a federal criminal statute to the generic definition, even when the statute is broader on its face

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007), an immigration case, this Court held that when a federal court applies the categorical approach to determine whether a state-law offense is described by a generic federal definition, the court must determine whether the state has in fact applied its law more broadly than the federal definition — an analysis known as the “realistic probability” test. The question presented here is whether, in a criminal case, when the plain language of a federal criminal statute is broader on its face than the generic definition in the federal offense of conviction, a court applying the categorical approach may nevertheless use Duenas-Alvarez’s “realistic probability” test to limit the plain language of the predicate offense. i