Patrick Allen Jones v. United States, 870 F.3d 750

Patrick Jones was convicted in Wisconsin (1998) of battery of a law enforcement officer, Wis. Stat. § 940.20(2), and later pleaded guilty (2004) to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
The district court applied the ACCA enhancement, finding Jones had three prior violent felonies (two burglaries and the Wisconsin battery), mandating a 15-year minimum sentence.
After Johnson (2015) invalidated the ACCA residual clause, Jones moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking resentencing, arguing his Wisconsin battery conviction no longer qualified as a violent felony.
The government maintained that the battery conviction qualified under the ACCA force clause (use of physical force), so Jones still had three qualifying offenses.
The district court denied relief; the Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo whether Wisconsin § 940.20(2) categorically qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA force clause.
The court examined the statute’s elements and Wisconsin precedent, concluding Wisconsin convictions under § 940.20(2) require violent force (force capable of causing physical pain or injury).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wisconsin battery of a law enforcement officer (§ 940.20(2)) is a "violent felony" under the ACCA force clause	Jones: "bodily harm" is broad and may cover conduct not involving violent force (e.g., causing illness), so conviction may not categorically require use of violent force	Government: Wisconsin case law shows § 940.20(2) requires physical force capable of causing pain or injury, so it meets the ACCA force-clause definition	The Eighth Circuit: § 940.20(2) is a categorical violent felony; Wisconsin courts have applied it to conduct involving violent force, so the conviction qualifies under the ACCA force clause

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause)
Johnson v. United States (Curtis Johnson), 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (defined "physical force" as violent force capable of causing pain or injury)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (categorical approach and indivisible statutes analysis)
Yates v. United States, 842 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 2016) (interpreting Wisconsin battery decisions in ACCA context)
United States v. Ossana, 638 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 2011) (categorical-approach precedent)
United States v. Eason, 829 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 2016) (considering state-law interpretation under ACCA)
United States v. Bell, 840 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2016) ("realistic probability" test for state statute overbreadth)