held in United State v. Cardena 842 F.3d997 h Ci. 2016)
Soastomae ts Sections [a(), a), a(3 Seprate Crimes
with their Own elemerts?

#2: was the jury able to perfornv its constitutional functiow under
Stirone r.United States 361 Us. 212 (1960), united States v
Muresunu 951 F3d 833 (7th cir.2020), and inre winshi'8 397 4.5.
358 (iat0), And were Detendants FiFth Amerdment and Farteenth
Amerdment Rights violated when he wus indicted on one
Offense, Illinois kidnappny Sectiow al2), But his Jury was

#3: Did the Police orranged Identlicatin Procedwes vidate due
process where Delndant was the only participunt in the procelires
who matched all the description factors?

H:Did Defendant have Standing to raise that his perceived race
as hisraric render the lineup Suggestive?

Whether the Tihnors Kidnapping Statute's divisible state statutes, as defined in Mathis v. United States (136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016)) and Descamps v. United States (133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013)), held in United States v. Cardena, 842 F.3d 959 (7th Cir. 2016), fail to make its sections clearly divisible, and thus separate crimes with their own elements