further review. Second, Hoover contends the court erred in determining his prior conviction for evading arrest with a motor vehicle under Texas Penal Code § 38. tes v. Holston, 471 Fed.Appx. 308, 309 (5th Cir.2012). Thus, the district court did not err in determining Hoover’s evading-arrest-with-a-motor-vehicle conviction was a violent felony. Third, because the factual basis for ACCA sentencing enhancements was used to raise the statutory maximum sentence applicable to him, Hoover asserts these facts must be charged in the indictment and either proved to a jury or admitted by him. Hoover concedes this claim is foreclosed, and raises it only to preserve it for possible further review. See James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192, 213-14, n. 8, 127 S.Ct. 1586, 167 L.Ed.2d 532 (2007) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. White, 465 F.3d
holding that a court can look only to the statutory elements charging documents and jury instructions to determine whether an earlier conviction after trial qualified as a violent felony under the acca holding categorical approach to determine whether a prior conviction qualifies as a violent felony for acca purposes raises no sixth amendment issue holding that courts should look to the statutory definition of the crime charged rather than the actual facts of the individuals prior conviction to determine whether the crime qualifies as a violent felony under the acca holding that a conviction under  22039 qualifies as an aggravated felony under the categorical approach holding a burglary must be of a building or structure in order to qualify as a violent felony for acca purposes