1. In Texas, a thief is guilty of robbery if he "intentionally or knowingly
threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death." Texas Penal
Code § 29.02(a)(2) (emphasis added). To "place another in fear," the thief need not
communicate a threat nor even interact with the victim.

Does this crime "ha[ve] as an element the .. . threatened use of physical force
against the person of another," 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i)?

2. Where a state's highest court has "definitively" held that a jury must
agree which of two statutory alternatives was proven at trial, then it "is easy" for a
federal court to determine divisibility: "a sentencing judge need only follow what" that
state court decision "says." Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500, 518 (2016). But the
ACCA's categorical approach demands "certainty," and any "indeterminancy" should
be resolved in the defendant's favor. Id. at 519.

In the absence of a definitive ruling from a state's highest court, and where
intermediate state appellate decisions conflict with one another, may a federal court
resolve the divisibility question against the defendant?

Whether Texas simple robbery 'has as an element the ... threatened use of physical force against the person of another'