Did the Fifth Circuit misapply the categorical approach by dismissing an elemental mismatch as a mere variation in terminology?

I. In Taylor v. United States , this Court announced a categorical approac h to recidivism enhancements in federal sentencing. See 495 U.S. 575, 602 (1990). The basic analysis requires an elements -to-elements comparison between a defendant’s prior conviction s and the generic offense or offenses singled out for special treatment by a sentencing statute or the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual . Since the test focuses on substance, not labels, “minor variations in terminology” cannot overcome actual correspondence between elements . See id . at 599. Here, the Fifth Circuit relied on Taylor ’s minor -variation -interminology language to declare irrelevant a substantive difference between Texas robbery and the new Hobbs Act inspired “robbery” definition from the Guidelines. In Texas, a thief becomes a robber by causing injury to a random passerby during an escape from the scene of an ordinary theft, but the same after -the-fact injury would be insufficient to prove a taking “by means of” force as required by the Hobbs Act and the Guidelines. To date, no other Court of Appeals has misapplied Taylor ’s minor -variation -in-terminology caveat to paper over a substantive mismatch between corresponding elements reaching different types of conduct. The question presented is this: did the Fifth Circuit misapply the categorical approach by dismissing a n elemental mismatch as a mere variation in terminology?