Is the 'touches or strikes' language in the Florida battery statutes divisible under Descamps v. United States and Mathis v. United States, permitting application of the 'modified categorical approach'?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Is the “touches or strikes’ language in the Florida battery statutes | | divisible under Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013) and Mathis v. | United States, 186 S.Ct. 2248 (2015), permitting application of the “modified | categorical approach,” or rather, is “touches or strikes” a single indivisible element, | requiring the categorical approach, and a finding under Curtis Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 1383 (2010) that a Florida battery on a law enforcement officer conviction is categorically overbroad vis-a-vis the ACCA’s elements clause? 2. If a statute is divisible under Descamps and Mathis, does the “modified categorical approach” permit a district court in an ACCA case to consider | undisputed factual allegations in the federal Pre-Sentence Investigation Report to | determine which statutory alternative was the basis of the conviction, or — for Sixth | Amendment reasons — is the Court’s consideration under the “modified categorical | approach” restricted to conclusive documents from the state-criminal case? | 3. Is an offense with a reckless mens rea ~ such as Florida aggravated | assault on an officer — a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause, which . requires that the offense “have as an element the use ... of physical force against the person of another”? : 4. Did the Eleventh Circuit err under Miller-El v. Cockrell, 587 U.S. 322, 336-338 (2003) and Buck v. Davis, 187 S.Ct. 759, 773-774 (2017) in denying Petitioner a certificate of appealability based upon adverse circuit precedent, when all of the above issues are nonetheless debatable among reasonable jurists? _i ; | INTERESTED PARTIES ‘ | i There are no