Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) is unconstitutionally vague

QUESTION PRESENTED I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), which criminalizes the use of a firearm during a “crime of violence,” in this case, the federal bank robbery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2113, which may be committed by unintentionally intimidating a victim through verbal demands or the passing of a demand note rather than the use or threatened use of physical force, and the definition of the term “crime of violence” cabined in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)(The Use of Force” or “Elements Clause”) is unconstitutionally vague, on its face, and unconstitutionally vague under the rule of lenity? II. Whether there is currently a conflict among the circuit courts of appeals and an ambiguity in the law regarding the federal statutory definition of the term “crime of violence”, and a conflict between the holdings of some circuits, specifically the Eleventh Circuit, and this Court’s previous holdings regarding the constitutional viability of the current definition of the term “crime of violence” in § 924(c) and related federal statutes? li