Can 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)(3)(A) because the offense fails to require any intentional use, attempted use, or threatened use of violent physical force?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW This Court held 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 offense. Decades of circuit precedent hold that intimidation under the statute is judged by the reasonable reaction of the victim, rather than by the defendant's intent. The question presented is: Can 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)(3)(A) because the offense fails to require any intentional use, attempted use, or threatened use of violent physical force? i