Whether the Fourth Circuit's denial of Zater's §2244 application, which would have been granted in other circuits under divergent gatekeeping protocols, creates exceptional circumstances warranting an exercise of the Supreme Court's supervisory powers, since Zater's sole predicate conviction of §371 conspiracy can only categorically be considered a 'crime of violence' through §924(c)'s now-void residual clause

Question Presented for Review This Court held the residual clause of "the universal definition of 'crime of violence'," 18 U.S.C. §16(b), is constitutionally void-for-vagueness. Sessions v_ Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018). Therein, Chief Justice Roberts opined that "§16 is replicated in the definition of 'crime of violence' applicable to §924(c)," and that "the Court's holding calls into question convictions under" §924(c) as well. Then this Court instructed the courts of appeals to reconsider §924(c)(3)(B) in light of Dimaya. See, e.g., United States v Jackson, 138 S.Ct. 1983 (2018), and United States v_ Jenkins, 138 S.Ct. 1980 (2018). Multiple circuit courts of appeals extended Dimaya to invalidate §924(c)'s residual clause as well. See United States v Salas, 889 F.3d 681, 686 (10th Cir. 2018); United States v Eshetu, 2018 U.S.App.LEXIS 21526 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 3, 2018); and United States v_ Davis, 2018 WL 4268432 (5th Cir. 2018). The . Seventh Circuit came to this conclusion even before Dimaya in United States v Cardena, 842 F.3d 959, 996 (7th Cir. 2016). Yet the Eleventh Circuit held in Ovalles v_ United States, No. 17-10172 (llth Cir. Oct. 4, 2018)(en banc), if §924(c)'s residual clause must use the categorical approach, then it is doomed; the Court decided to create a conduct-based construction in order to save the statute from See also United States v_ Barrett, No. 14-2641 (2d Cir. Sept. 10, 2018); and United States v_ Douglas, No. 18-1129 (ist Cir. Oct. 12, . 2018). The question presented is: Considering this circuit split that has developed, does the Fourth Circuit's denial of Zater's §2244 application, which would have been granted in other circuits under the divergent gatekeeping protocols, create exceptional circumstances warranting an exercise of this Court's supervisory powers, since Zater's sole predicate conviction of §371 conspiracy can only categorically be considered a "crime of violence" through §924(c)'s now-void residual clause? iii Relief Sought Zater prays this Court for issuance of an extraordinary writ to: a. resolve the split amongst the circuits as to the proper gatekeeping threshold under §2244; b. resolve the split amongst the circuits as to §924 (c)(3)(B)'s constitutionality; c. resolve the split amongst the circuits as to which approach §924(c)'s residual clause must utilize , categorical or conduct-based; : d. reverse the Fourth Circuit's 18 September 2018 Order (No. 18-340), and remand for consideration in light of the above resolutions; ~ . e. grant Zater leave to pursue his claims in the first instance at the district court level; and £. any and all further relief this Court deems just and proper. iv Unavailability of Relief in any other Court or Forum No other court can grant the relief sought by this petition because only this Court has the jurisdiction to "review the gatekeeping orders" of 28 U.S.C. §2244 issued by the appropriate court of appeals. See Felker v_ Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 666-667 (1996). The failure of this Court to correct the Fourth Circuit's clearly erroneous rulings in the instant matter will divest this Court of its certiorari power, which could amount to a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(E); and Bagley v_ Byrd, 534 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2001). Such review will also aid this Court's appellate jurisdiction by exercising its general supervisory control over the federal court system. See, e.g., Connor v_ Coleman, 440 U.S. 612, 624 (1979). Statement of Reasons for not Making Application to the District Court in the District in Which Zater is Held Pursuant to statutory authority, Zater was bound to make his request for leave to file a second §2255 to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(A). The only court with authority to review such gatekeeping orders is the Supreme Court of the United States. See Felker, supra. The district court in which Zater is held would have no legal standing to review an order of a court of higher