I. Is the reasoning of Taylor irrelevant to deciding whether an overbroad state crime qualifies as an ACCA predicate, as the Sixth Circuit held below?

II. Did Duenas-Alvarez announce a blanket rule that a defendant must satisfy the realistic probability inquiry even when a state crime is plainly broader than the federal generic crime, as the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits have held, or is the realistic probability inquiry obviated when the state crime is plainly broader than the federal generic offense, as the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held?

Whether the reasoning of United States v. Taylor applies to determining if an overbroad state crime qualifies as an Armed Career Criminal Act predicate