1. Whether, a conviction based on an erroneous legal theory, interpretation or
a mistake about the law, can continue to be sustained, once the petitioner
has presented "clear and convincing" evidence, that at the time of trial,
the accused, his trial attorney, his sentencing attorney, the District Court, .
the goverment's attorneys, and the Appellate Court, did not correctly
understand the essential elements of the crimes with which the accused was
charged; to the extent that the court's jury instructions so confused the jury, its convictions ended being the product of either a "Constructive
Amendment of the Indictment" or a "Fatal Variance," as a substantial
violation of the petitioner's Fifth & Sixth Amendment rights?

2. Whether, after the Ninth Circuit declared 18 U.S.C. §2113(a) to be a "divisible"
statute, did the District Court and the Ninth Circuit violate the petitioner's
substantive Fifth Amendment's: "Due ,Process" rights by refusing to apply the
"modified categorical approach," in violation of this Honorable Supreme Court
holdings in Taylor, 495.U.S. 575, 600, 110 $.ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed. 2d 607 (1990);
Descamps, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed. 2d 438 (2013); and Mathis, 195 L.Ed. 2d 604; 2016, U.S. LEXIS 4060 (2016), as well as a long line of Ninth Circuit case law
regarding "divisible" statutes, in order to avoid correcting a substantial
violation of the petitioner's Constitutional rights, where the jury instructions
clearly resulted in a "Constructive'Amendment of the Indictment," or a "Fatal
Variance" by directing the jury to find the defendant guilty of two §924(c)(1)(A)'s
in relation to a single charge of armed bank robbery, §2113(a)(d), and where the
jury was so confused, the verdit form reflects the jury convicted the defendant
of a third uncharged §924(c) in relation to a generic $111 assault, pursuant to
§924(c)(1)(C)(ii), where the "conviction documents" (indictment, jury instructions,
jury verdict, and verdict form) provides "clear and convincing evidence" of
violations of the defendant's substantive Constitutional: rights under the Fifth
and* Sixth Amendments?

3. Whether the Ninth Circuit violated the "Certificate of Appealability" (0A)
Due Process" established in Slack v. McDaniel, 579 U.S. 473 (2000), by denying
a "COA" without comment, after the petitioner provided "clear and convincing"
evidence by presenting a. substantial showing of several violations of his
Fifth & Sixth Amendment rights, and jurist of reason would find the district
court's refusal to apply the "modified categorical approach," debateable in
light of the appellate court's declaring 18 U.S.C. §2113(a) to be a "divisible"
statute, because the modified categorical approach would have reveal a
Constructive Amendment of the Indictment, or fatal variance, and that neither
the accused attorneys, the District Court, the government and the patitioner's
direct: appeal panel did not correctly understand the essential elements of
the crimes charged?

Whether a conviction based on an erroneous legal theory can be sustained when the petitioner presents clear and convincing evidence that the accused, attorneys, courts, and government did not correctly understand the essential elements of the charged crimes