THE COURT SHOULD ISSUE A W.O.C. AND ADDRESS WHETHER THE FEDERAL CARJACKING OFFENSE DOES CONSTITUTE A "CRIME OF VIOLENCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

II. REASONABLE JURIST ARE DIVIDED ON WHETHER THE ELEMENT OF "BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE AND INTIMI DATION" DOES MEET THE"JOHNSON I" VIOLENT AND FORCE THRESHOLD. HOLDING THE DAVIS RULING...

C. REASONABLE JURIST COULD FIND DEBATABLE THE ISSUE WHETHER CARJACKING'S INTIMIDATIONS ELEMENT REQUIRES A VOLITIONAL THREAT OF A VIOLENT FORCE.

D. REASONABLE JURIST RECONIZES THE DEBATABILITY OF, IF WHETHER CARJACKING SATISFIES THAT OF THE FORCE CLAUSE AS HODLING UNDER DAVIS.

E. THE QUESTIONG WHETHER SECTION 924(c) (3)(B)'s "RESIDUAL CLAUSE" IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS AND SATISFIES THE "SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING" STANDARD

Whether the federal carjacking offense constitutes a 'crime of violence' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)