1. When deciding whether "state law" provides
"clear answers" about divisibility and juror unanimity,
Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500, 517-18 (2016),
may a federal court of appeals declare a crime
"divisible" based on its own interpretation of statutory
language if the state's own appellate courts have held
that the alternatives are means rather than elements?

2. May a federal court of appeals refuse to consider
a constitutional claim raised after briefing was
completed where the U.S. Government first conceded
the constitutional violation in other litigation months
after the principal briefs were filed.

Whether a federal court of appeals may declare a crime 'divisible' based on its own interpretation of statutory language if the state's own appellate courts have held the alternatives are means rather than elements