United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 13-3438
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                              James Andrew Arender

                      lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
                                      ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
              for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
                                 ____________

                             Submitted: May 23, 2014
                               Filed: June 20, 2014
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      James Andrew Arender appeals a ruling of the district court1 designating him
an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Having jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

      1
       The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.
       Arender pled guilty to one count of Felon in Possession of a Firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). At the plea he preserved
the right to appeal his designation as an armed career criminal under § 924(e). He
argues his prior Tennessee conviction for aggravated assault is not a violent felony
under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B).

       “We review de novo a district court’s determination that a defendant’s prior
conviction constitutes a violent felony.” United States v. Soileau, 

, 864
(8th Cir. 2012). A violent felony “(i) has an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against the person of another; or (ii) is a burglary,
arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that
presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” 18 U.S.C. §
924(e)(2)(B). “[T]he phrase ‘physical force’ means violent force—that is, force
capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person.” Johnson v. United
States, 

, 140 (2010).

       As Arender notes, the Tennessee statute at issue is divisible. See United States
v. Cooper, 

, 880 (6th Cir. 2014). Thus, the “modified categorical
approach” determines whether the conviction is a crime of violence. See United
States v. Tucker, 

, 1179-80 (8th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (“If one
alternative in a divisible statute qualifies as a violent felony, but another does not, we
apply the ‘modified categorical approach’ to determine under which portion of the
statute the defendant was convicted.”). “[T]he modified categorical approach permits
sentencing courts to consult a limited class of documents, such as indictments and
jury instructions, to determine which alternative formed the basis of the defendant’s
prior conviction.” Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. ___ ,

, 2281
(2013).

       Arrender pled guilty to the indictment, which states he “intentionally or
knowingly, did cause [the victim] to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury, by use
or display of a deadly weapon, namely, a baseball bat.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-

                                           -2-
13-102(a)(1)(B) (2006); referencing § 39-13-101 (a)(2). This crime has as an element
the threatened use of physical force against another person, capable of causing pain
or injury. Arrender’s Tennessee conviction for aggravated assault is a violent felony
under § 924(e)(2)(B). Accord 

(finding a conviction
under the same version of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102(a)(1)(B) qualifies as a crime
of violence).

      The judgment is affirmed.
                     ______________________________




                                         -3-