1. When a state's highest court has interpreted a state criminal statute to allow for a conviction even if no physical force is used in certain circumstances, can a federal court hold that the statute is divisible despite the fact that the statute's language and it's treatment by the state's courts indicate it is indivisible?

2. Is the Ninth Circuit correct in holding that an implicit threat of arrest fulfills the "force clause" definition of "violent felony"?

Whether California's simple kidnapping offense as it existed in 1974 was a 'violent felony' under the 'force clause' definition of 'violent felony' for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA)