Whether Texas simple robbery 'has as an element the ... threatened use of physical force against the person of another'

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. In Texas, a thief is guilty of robbery if he “intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.” Texas Penal Code § 29.02(a)(2) (emphasis added). To “place another in fear,” the thief need not communicate a threat nor even interact with the victim. Does this crime “ha[ve] as an element the .. . threatened use of physical force against the person of another,” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i)? 2. Where a state’s highest court has “definitively” held that a jury must agree which of two statutory alternatives was proven at trial, then it “is easy” for a federal court to determine divisibility: “a sentencing judge need only follow what” that state court decision “says.” Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500, 518 (2016). But the ACCA’s categorical approach demands “certainty,” and any “indeterminancy” should be resolved in the defendant’s favor. Id. at 519. In the absence of a definitive ruling from a state’s highest court, and where intermediate state appellate decisions conflict with one another, may a federal court resolve the divisibility question against the defendant? i