I. Is a state robbery offense, that includes as an element the requirement of
overcoming victim resistance by use of force, a violent felony under the
elements clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(e)(2)(B)(i), if state appellate courts have specifically held that the
amount of force used to overcome resistance is immaterial?

II. What amount of force satisfies this Court's definition of "physical force,"
that is, force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person
as described in Johnson v. United States , 559 U.S. 133, 140 (2010)?

III. New Mexico courts have held that the state's aggravated assault statute
does not have any mens rea element with respect to the victim. Does the
Tenth Circuit's decision that the offense nonetheless has as an element
the use, attempted use, or threatened use of violent force against the
person of another so as to qualify as a 'violent felony' under the ACCA, 18
U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i), conflict with the decisions of the Fourth, Fifth,
Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits that have held that an offense
must have as an element a mens rea relating to the victim to fall within
the ACCA's force clause?

IV. New Mexico courts have held that the state's aggravated battery statute
can be violated by unlawful touching alone. Unlawful touch that results
in bodily injury is an element of aggravated battery. But does New
Mexico aggravated battery have as an element the use of violent,
physical force as described in Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 140
(2010)?

Whether a state robbery offense that includes overcoming victim resistance by use of force is a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act's elements clause