Whether the Circuits have interpreted the actus reus of assault with a dangerous weapon too narrowly and against its plain language by requiring violent physical force as an element

question presented is whether the Circuits have interpreted the actus reus of assault with a dangerous weapon too narrowly and against its plain language by requiring violent physical force as an element. 2. The district court denied Dulus’s motion to vacate conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as procedurally defaulted because Dulus did not bring the claim on direct appeal. Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. The second and third questions presented are whether the Ninth Circuit contravened this Court’s precedent and contributed to a Circuit split by declining to grant a certificate of appealability because: a. Jurisdictional claims that the indictment failed to state an offense against the laws of the United States—and thus failed to confer jurisdiction over the criminal proceedings at all—cannot be waived or subject to procedural default; and b. Dulus demonstrated cause and prejudice excusing any procedural default because the legal basis for his claim was not reasonably available at the time of direct appeal and Dulus is serving a mandatory consecutive 60-month sentence as a result of the unlawful conviction. 1