person with the intent of: (a) Preventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the property or to retention thereof immediately after the taking; or (b) Compelling the owner of such property or another person to deliver the property or to engage in other conduct which might aid in the commission of the theft.... Under the categorical approach described in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), we look only to the fact of conviction and.the statutory definition of the offense to determine whether it was a violent felony. The Oregon statutory definition of second-degree robbery contains the required element of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical violence. See United States v. Melton, 344 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). We therefore hold that a conviction for
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 defendants conviction for six counts of armed robbery based on his simultaneous robbery of six individuals at a restaurant should be counted as a single conviction holding that violence is synonymous with force in affirming armed robbery conviction 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 conviction for robbery under alabama statute a crime of violence both because the statute involved physical force and because robbery was one of the enumerated offenses in comment note 1 to ussg  4b12