When a state statute is facially broader than its federal counterpart, must a defendant still offer examples of overbroad state prosecutions to confirm the statute's scope?

QUESTION PRESENTED Under the categorical approach to classifying a prior conviction, a state offense is nongeneric or overbroad if it covers conduct that its federal counterpart does not reach. In Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007), this Court held that—when no apparent daylight exists between the statutory elements of the state and generic offenses—a defendant arguing that a state conviction is nongeneric “must at least point to his own case or other cases in which the state courts in fact did apply the statute in the special (nongeneric) manner for which he argues.” Jd. at 193. The question presented is: When a state statute is facially broader than its federal counterpart, must a defendant still offer examples of overbroad state prosecutions to confirm the statute’s scope? @)