that “for purposes of a similar statute—18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A)— reckless conduct can constitute a crime of violence.” United States v. Benally, 843 F.3d 350, 354 (9th Cir. 2016). However, the Court declines to adopt the government’s position. In Benally, the Ninth Circuit declined to make any definitive ruling on Voisine’s impact. The court refrained from resolving any tension between Voisine and Femandez-Ruiz and in fact relied on Femandez-Ruiz in finding an earlier Ninth Circuit decision in United States v. Springfield, 829 F.2d 860 (9th Cir. 1987) no longer good law. See id. at 354. The Court is thus reluctant to find the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Femandez-Ruiz is no longer good law. It was not overruled in Benally. But see United States v. Fogg, 836 F.3d 951, 956 (8th Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>). More important, in Voisine itself, the
holding that where the states definition of robbery has on its face the element of use or threatened use of physical force a robbery conviction is properly used as a predicate under acca holding that simple battery the actual and intentional touching of another  does not constitute a predicate offense because the acca requires violent force not merely offensive contact holding that following voisine reckless conduct can constitute use of force under the acca because the force clauses in 18 usc  921a33aii and the acca both define qualifying predicate offenses as those involving the use  of physical force against another holding iowa common law touching assault met use of physical force required for enhancement under 18 usc  922g9 be cause any physical contact by necessity requires physical force to complete holding that expert testimony on what constitutes deadly physical force and whether the use of force was justified should have been excluded