as an offense in which a person “assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with [a federal employee] engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties.” 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). Subsection (b) of the statute provides for an enhanced. penalty if the perpetrator “inflicts bodily injury” during “the commission of any acts described in subsection (a).” Id. § 111(b). Thus, in order to convict a defendant for a violation of § 111(b), the government must prove all the elements of a violation of § 111(a) and the additional element of actual bodily injury. See United States v. Gutierrez, 745 F.3d 463, 471 n. 9 (11th Cir.2014); see also United States v. Siler, 734 F.3d 1290, 1296 (11th Cir.2013), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1563, 188 L.Ed.2d 574 (2014) (<HOLDING>). Here, defendant Clayton fails to show any
holding that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt holding that other than the fact of a prior conviction any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt holding that the determination whether a crime is a necessarily included lesser offense of another crime is made by examining the elements of the crimes that must be proved in order to sustain a conviction holding that other than fact of prior conviction any fact that increases penalty for crime beyond prescribed statutory minimum must be submitted to jury and proved beyond reasonable doubt holding that  111 establishes three separate crimes each consisting of the elements of the preceding category of crime but adding an element or elements that must be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt resulting in an increased penalty