larceny. III. For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that larceny from the person is a crime of violence in the abstract. We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. AFFIRMED 1 . Smith alleges that because the indictment was amended by crossing out the word "rob” and replacing it with "commit larceny from the person,” the state court determined that no force or violence was involved in the crime. Even if this were true—although the record contains no evidence concerning the circumstances of the amendment — it would not help Smith. While the amendment of the indictment may indicate the absence of violence, the question here is whether the offense in general involves a risk of violence. 2 . Howze overruled United States v. Lee, 22 F.3d 736, 740-41 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>), on which Smith relies. See Howze, 343 F.3d at
holding that an escape from custody under minnesota law is a crime of violence holding that theft from the person of another under wisconsin law is not a crime of violence as a matter of law and can only qualify as such if there are sufficient facts in the indictment to indicate that a serious threat of violence occurred holding that a threat to harm another person is a crime of violence holding that north carolina crime of larceny from the person was a crime of violence under the residual clause of the career offender guideline holding that theft from the person is not a crime of violence