Whether the Armed Bank Robbery charged as a predicate to Mr. Luster's §924(c)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) convictions includes a mens rea of recklessness or instead requires purpose or knowledge

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Question of Law: In light of Borden v. United Statés, 141 S.Ct. 1821 (2021); under the categorical approach the MEREEIEN 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), is the HERE clement narrow enough to be deemed a “crime of violence” under subsection 924 (c) (3) (A) element clause. ; ; Question of Law: § 924 (c) (3) (Ay’s element clause language. Did Mr. Luster’s Trial and Sentencing Judge, Defendant Attorney and Defendant have the correct understand of the nature of §924(c)(3)(A) at the time of the acceptance of his plea?? ; Legal Question is: Whether the Armed Bank Robbery charged as a predicate to Mr. Luster’s §924(c)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) convictions [include] a mens rea of [recklessness] or instead [require] purpose or knowledge. ‘