Whether aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery does not require the use, attempted use, or threatened use of violent physical force under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)'s force clause

question presented is whether Circuits have failed to apply categorical analysis to aiding and abetting’s distinct elements, which do not meet the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)’s force clause. In addition, the Hobbs Act robbery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1), does not require as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use, of violent physical force. By its plain language, Hobbs Act robbery encompasses future threats to injure intangible property and does not require violent physical force. The second question presented is whether the Circuits have interpreted the actus reus of Hobbs Act robbery too narrowly and against its plain language by requiring violent physical force as an element. 1