Did the Third Circuit err in holding that Federal Bank Robbery is a Crime of Violence under the Element Clause of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3)(A)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ON REVIEW 1. Did the Third Circuit err in holding that” Federal : Bank? Robbery is a Crime of Violence under the Element Clause of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3)(A) of this Court's holding in United States v. Johnson, 899 F.3d 191, 203-04 (3rd Cir.), Cert. denied 139 S. Ct. . 647 (2018); United States v. Wilson, 880 F.3d 80, 88 (3rd Cir.), . Cert. denied 138 S. Ct. 2586, 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 htat intimidation under'the statute is judged by the reasonable reaction of the | listener rather than by the defendant's intent? | | 2. Is Bank Robbery under 18 U.S.C. §2113(a) a divisible statute under the Element Clause of 18 U.S.C. §924(c) according to United States v. Butler, No. 19-10065, F.3d (5th Cir. 2020)? A. Federal Bank Robbery is not a Crime of Violence under 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3)(A) because, as authoritatively interpreted by this Court and the Circuits for decades, "Intimidation" does not require the use or threatened a use of violent force (1) The Force Clause requires a purposeful threat of Physical Force, where as Bank Robbery by intimidation is a general intent crime that does not require any intent to intimidate (2) The Force Clause requires a threatened use of Violent Physical Force, where Bank Robbery by intimidation does not require that a defendant communicate any: intent to use violence . i ; batt (3) The correct interpretation of "Intimidation" under 18 U.S.C. §2113(a) is an exceptionally important question because of its broad impact on standards for conviction and sentencing... . : B. Bank Robbery under 18 U.S.C. §2113(a) constitutes a divisible statute to challenge the "Crime Of Violence" under the Element Clause of 18 U.S.c.' §924(c) | © : ii