Does the categorical approach apply in determining whether an offense is a crime of violence' for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)?

question presented is: Does the categorical approach apply in determining whether an offense is a . “crime of violence” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)? ; 2. The Third Circuit also noted that irrespective of whether the categorical approach applies, one of the predicate offenses for Petitioner’s § 924(c) charge, a Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b), may still constitute a crime of violence. This Court recently held in Sessions v. Dimaya that a “straightforward application” of Johnson to the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b)}—worded identically to the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)—compels the determination that that provision is unconstitutionally vague. 138 S. Ct. 1204, 1213 (Apr. 7, 2018). The question presented is: In light of Johnson v. United States and Sessions v. Dimaya, can a Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b) categorically constitute a “crime of violence” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A), if juries in three circuits are routinely i ‘ . instructed according to those circuits’ pattern instructions the offense may be committed by simply causing the victim to “fear harm” which includes “fear of financial loss as well as fear of physical violence’? | | | ii