Whether a federal court of appeals may declare a crime 'divisible' based on its own interpretation of statutory language if the state's own appellate courts have held the alternatives are means rather than elements

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. When deciding whether “state law” provides “clear answers” about divisibility and juror unanimity, Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500, 517-18 (2016), may a federal court of appeals declare a crime “divisible” based on its own interpretation of statutory language if the state’s own appellate courts have held that the alternatives are means rather than elements? 2. May a federal court of appeals refuse to consider a constitutional claim raised after briefing was completed where the U.S. Government first conceded the constitutional violation in other litigation months after the principal briefs were filed. Il DIRECTLY