Whether a statute that does not require the affirmative use of force has, as an element, the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force

The district court increased Mr. Donath’s sentence based upon his prior state of Iowa conviction for assault causing bodily injury or mental illness. In so doing, the court found that “causing bodily injury or mental illness” requires violent forc e. Mr. Donath’s petition asks this Court to address: 1) Whether a statute that does not require the affirmative use of force has, as an element, the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force ?1 2) Whether a defendant establishes that a state conviction is broader than the generic definition of a criminal sentencing enhancement provision by pointing to both the statute’s plainly overbroad language and a case example applying the statute in an overbroad manner ? In 2023, the United States Sentencing Commission amended USSG §3E1.1(b), the acceptance of responsibility Guideline, at the urging of this Court, to resolve a circuit split. The amendment clarified that acceptance of responsibility should not be denied based upon pretrial motions or sentencing challenges. In Mr. Donath’s case, the district court granted a two -level reduction for acceptance, but the prosecution refused to move for the third level based upon Mr. Donath’s sentencing challenges. Mr. Donath’s petition then asks this Court to address: 3) Whether the recently amended acceptance of responsibility United States Sentencing Guideline provides federal prosecutors with sole discretion on whether to move for a third -level reduction? 1 This Court granted certiorari on a virtually identical question in Delligati v. United States , 23-825. This case is currently pending.