Whether federal armed bank robbery by intimidation is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(8)(A)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ON REVIEW 1. Given this Court’s holding in Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255, 268 (2000), that federal armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) is a general intent rather than a specific intent crime, and given decades of circuit precedent holding that intimidation under the statute is judged by the reasonable reaction of the listener rather than by the defendant’s intent, could reasonable jurists conclude that federal armed bank robbery by intimidation is not a crime of violence under the elements clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(8)(A) because the offense fails to require any intentional use, attempted use, or threatened use of violent physical force? 2. Could reasonable jurists conclude that this Court’s decision in United States v. Dean, 137 8.Ct. 1170 (2017), in which the Court held that sentencing courts may consider the mandatory minimum and consecutive nature of the sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) in imposing the sentence on related counts, is a new substantive rule of sentencing that may be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review?