Whether the federal bank robbery statute requires a knowing or intentional mens rea, and whether the 'force' clause of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A) applies when the underlying offense can be committed by extortion that does not require the use or fear of physical force

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ' Petitioner comes forth with Question base under Graham v. United States; @ U-S., No. 16-6308, friend of the Court brief filed 10/28/16. To Be Held TnsAbeyance To Outcome Of Supreme Court Decision. Mr. Rahman brings same conclusion when FBI use mining mobile phone provider records to point him at Bank Robbery base on the phone call to Ms. Karina Echevarria on May 25, 2012 at 4:19pm. Petitioner ask The Supreme Court grant a"GVR" Petitioner comes forth with Question base under Lynch v. Dimaya, No. 151498 To Be Held In Abeyance To Outcome Of Supreme Court Decision. Retitioner ask The Supreme Court grant a neve" (a) Petitioner states federal bank robbery statue does not require a knowing or intentional "mens rea" in association with the use of force or intimidation. Therefore "force" clause of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A) does not apply Mr. Rahman under residual clause 924(c)(3)(B) which identical to 16(b).Count 2 should be dismiss.for not being "Crime of Violence" (b) Petitioner argues Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 . L.Ed. 2d 604(2016) Mr. Rahman brings argument under lessor included offense of Bank Robbery which can be committed by means of extortion that does not require the use or fear of physical force. Therefore Count 2 should be dismiss for not being "Crime of Violence" re) OR