With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the Government presented evidence that the firearm at issue had traveled in interstate commerce and acknowledges that his argument is at odds with this Court’s binding precedent. Accordingly, we find the district court’s application of § 922(g) was not unconstitutional. III. Pritchard argues the district court committed four reversible errors in imposing his 240-month sentence. He first contends that the district court erred in sentencing him as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because his two prior convictions for resisting arrest with violence, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 843.01, do not qualify as predicate violent felony offenses. Our precedent, however, forecloses this argument. See United States v. Nix, 628 F.3d 1341, 1342 (11th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). We reject Pritchard’s argument that the law

A: holding that a conviction for a violating fla stat  84301 constitutes a violent felony under the acca
B: holding fleeing police officers in a vehicle was a violent felony under the acca
C: holding massachusetts conviction for larceny from the person constitutes violent felony under the residual clause of the acca
D: holding that escape is categorically a violent felony under the acca
A.