Whether the Tihnors Kidnapping Statute's divisible state statutes, as defined in Mathis v. United States (136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016)) and Descamps v. United States (133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013)), held in United States v. Cardena, 842 F.3d 959 (7th Cir. 2016), fail to make its sections clearly divisible, and thus separate crimes with their own elements

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED , #1. 19 The Tihnors Kidnapping Shotute w ‘divsibie State Statutes, AS delined in Madiie vY United Aokes (3¢ S.Ck 2242 (Q0i6 ond Mie vi Untite States 13¢ 9.04 .2243 (2016) held in Umied States vu. Carden PHY Fad qy L (Th, Cir, QolG 7 : $045 Jo make ig Sechonys Cady, ala),a (3) Seperaie, Crimes : Wott ther oun Clements %& #2: Was the jury able do Perloray 14g Consiibuhon al funchrou Under Strong »-United States 364 Ws. 219, (460) Unted Shoteg y Muresuau, 45! Fad + “Hy Cir. 038), and ince wg, 347 us § Amendment Qrgne urolated When he wus INévcted on One oFense,, Tilwois Kenarorny Sechiow aby, But bis Tury wus Instructed On, One he Was Cororvetked gt Krenan ning Sedu al) t HS: Did dhe Pree orrarged LEANN CAO Procedures violate dug Prowss Where, etndort Was Hs ONY Porbverpant ; n*he Prowlires Who matched CL the, Leseri row Fackors z ELE Did Detentont hove Sor ding to Caise Wot Ws Perceived race, OS Morave reprec the \avup S4ggeshrye?