purposes of the ACCA. United States v. Hemingway, 784 F.3d 323, 331 (4th Cir.2013). In ’ considering whether the district court properly designated Taste an armed career criminal, we review the sentencing court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. McDowell, 745 F.3d 115, 120 (4th Cir.2014), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 942, 190 L.Ed.2d 828 (2015). A defendant is an armed career criminal when he violates 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and has three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Because a Massachusetts conviction for larceny from the person constitutes a violent felony for purposes of the ACCA, we reject this argument. See United States v. Rodriguez, 659 F.3d 117, 118-20 (1st Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); United States v. DeJesus, 984 F.2d 21, 25
holding that escape is categorically a violent felony under the acca holding residual clause of acca void for vagueness holding that a massachusetts conviction of larceny from the person qualifies as a violent felony because the potential for confrontation and physical injury invariably exists holding that a conviction for a violating fla stat  84301 constitutes a violent felony under the acca holding massachusetts conviction for larceny from the person constitutes violent felony under the residual clause of the acca