Whether a criminal statute that prohibits the intentional causation of bodily injury to another 'by any means,' including omissions, is categorically a violent felony under the ACCA

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Clinton Rumley was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to a mandatory minimum of 15 years in prison. The application of the ACCA sentencing enhancement was based on a 40-year old prior conviction for unlawful wounding — a Virginia criminal statute that does not require any affirmative act and which can be committed with a mens rea of mere recklessness. The sentencing judge found that the unlawful wounding conviction had occurred based on a plea agreement and an unsigned court judgment, applying the preponderance of the evidence standard over Mr. Rumley’s objection. Mr. Rumley has long over-served the 10-year statutory maximum sentence otherwise applicable for a 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) offense without an ACCA enhancement. Mr. Rumley presents three questions for this Court to review: (1) Whether a criminal statute that prohibits the intentional causation of bodily injury to another “by any means,” including omissions, is categorically a violent felony under the ACCA. (2) Whether the holding of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), which created a carve-out to the rule later adopted in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), should be reconsidered in light of Apprendi and its progeny which have, for the past two decades, called its holding into question and perpetuated litigation in both state and federal courts. (3) Whether a mens rea of mere recklessness is sufficient for conviction under Virginia’s unlawful wounding statute, thereby precluding the offense from qualifying as a violent felony under the ACCA. i LIST OF ALL DIRECTLY