Does Taylor's holding that Oklahoma's offense of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon meets the force standard in the elements clause incorrectly apply Mathis v. United States?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)), three qualifying previous felony convictions invokes a minimum sentence of 15 years for the offense of felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)). In district court, the Petitioner’s motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 was rejected for the reason that two of his prior convictions qualified under the ACCA’s elements clause. The clause requires an element of force capable of causing physical pain or injury. On appeal, the court of appeals held that the Petitioner did not qualify for a certificate of appealability because his claim that two of his prior convictions did not meet the force standard of the elements clause was foreclosed by United States v. Taylor, 843 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2016). Taylor held that the State of Oklahoma offense of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon qualified under the elements clause of USSG § 4B1.2(a)(1), which is identical to the elements clause of the ACCA. Under Oklahoma law, battery can be committed by lightly touching another person, and a dangerous weapon includes a sword cane, a loaded cane, and a hand chain. Question presented: does Taylor’s holding, that Oklahoma’s offense of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon meets the force standard in the elements clause (force capable of causing physical pain or injury), incorrectly apply Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), which held that an overbroad offense cannot be divided during categorical analysis if the overbroad terms consist of means, where the Oklahoma offense can be committed by lightly touching another person with a sword cane, loaded cane, or hand chain?