to duty causes serious accidents)”). Moreover, the Court cited with approval a description of drunk driving as “a crime of negligence or recklessness, rather than violence or aggression.” Id. at 146, 128 S.Ct. 1581 (quoting United States v. Begay, 470 F.3d 964, 980 (10th Cir.2006) (McConnell, J., dissenting in part)). Further, it noted that crimes involving the use of explosives are purposeful because “the word ‘use’ most naturally suggests a higher degree of intent than negligent or merely accidental conduct.” Id. at 145, 128 S.Ct. 1581 (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). Following Begay, our sister circuits have similarly held that crimes involving only negligent or reckless mens reas do not fall within the residual clause. See, e.g., Roseboro, 551 F.3d at 242-43 (<HOLDING>); Baker, 559 F.3d at 453 (holding that
holding that to the extent a south carolina violation for failing to stop for a blue light required only negligent conduct it is not a violent felony under begay holding that under indiana law fleeing an officer in a vehicle constitutes a violent felony under begay because the flight must be done knowingly or intentionally  holding south carolina conviction for failure to stop for a blue light to be violent felony under acca because prohibited conduct creates potential for confrontation and violence holding that burglary is violent felony holding that failure to stop for a blue light is a violent felony under armed career criminal statute because it involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another