injury.... But that does not mean that [such an] offensef ] ... [is] categorically nonviolent.”). We likewise find that the other requirements articulated in Begay — that the defendant’s crime must present a degree of risk similar to that presented by the enumerated crimes and also be similar in kind to those offenses — are readily satisfied in this case. As noted above, the PSAS predicates criminal liability on a finding that the defendant caused or attempted to cause bodily injury to the victim. Pennsylvania law defines “bodily harm” as “[i]mpairment of physical condition or substantial pain.” 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 2301. A conviction under that statute therefore poses a risk of injury that is more or less comparable to the enumerated crimes. See James, 550 U.S. at 199, 127 S.Ct. 1586 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, a conviction under the PSAS in most
holding that burglary is violent felony holding that where policies exclude coverage for injuries that are intended or expected the exclusion is applicable if the insured acts with the intent or expectation that bodily injury will result even though the bodily injury that does result is different either in character or magnitude from the injury that was intended holding that the fatal injury to a murder victim may be considered as satisfying the bodily injury component of the capital felony of kidnapping with bodily injury holding that ohios thirddegree burglary statute constituted a violent felony under the residual clause of the armed career criminal act holding that attempted burglary is a violent felony under the armed career criminal act because like the enumerated crimes it creates significant risks of bodily injury or confrontation that might result in bodily injury emphasis added