Is Hobbs Act violence a 'crime of violence' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)?

question presented is whether Hobbs Act robbery, which can be committed by causing the victim to fear economic loss (“injury”) to an intangible asset (“property”), categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s elements clause, requiring the use of “physical force.” 2. Hobbs Act robbery is “based on [] New York law.” Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255, 264 (1992). New York robbery may be committed by minor 1 physicalexertions such as a bump, see People v. Lee, 197 A.D.2d 378, 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993); a block, see People v. Bennett, 219 A.D.2d 570, 570 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995); or a brief tug-of-war over property, see People v. Safon, 166 A.D.2d 389, 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). The second question presented is whether Hobbs Act robbery, which like New York robbery can be committed by minor exertions of physical force, categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s elements clause, requiring the use of “violent force.” 3. The third question presented is whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule prevents permits historical cell site evidence obtained without a warrant to be offered at trial notwithstanding need for legislative deterrence.