Whether Mr. Thompson's plea of guilty was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether Mr. Thompson’s plea of guilty to brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, where neither Mr. Thompson, nor his counsel, nor the district court, correctly understood the essential elements of the crime, because United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) narrowed the “crime of violence” definition while Mr. Thompson’s case was on direct appeal? 2. Whether the intrastate, armed robbery of two foreign tourists of their personal effects and cash is an offense “for which [a] person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States”? 3. Whether, for purposes of the categorical approach, Hobbs Act robbery includes “as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another,” where the pattern jury instructions of two circuits allow for conviction based on conduct which is shown to merely cause fear of future financial loss? i INTERESTED PARTIES AND