Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that federal bank robbery is a crime of violence under the force clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ON REVIEW he Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that federal bank robbery is a crime of violence under the force clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), in light of this Court’s holding in Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255, 268 (2000), that the offense 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? 2. Is this Court’s opinion in Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017), a substantive rule that applies retroactively on collateral review because Dean articulated a mandatory sentencing standard when it held that the substantive requirement of reasonableness under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b) applies to aggregate sentences regardless of the consecutive sentencing mandate in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). i