Whether the First Circuit erred in upholding 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B) (2013) against a First Amendment challenge

QUESTION PRESENTED In recent years, in McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S. Ct. 2518 (2014) and Thayer v. City of Worcester, 135 S. Ct. 2887 (2015), the First Circuit has forced this Court repeatedly to instruct it on the proper application of the First Amendment and correct it to ensure that protected speech is not dangerously chilled. Unfortunately, the First Circuit has again misconstrued the First Amendment, and this Court’s precedent in United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010), in upholding the 2013 version of the federal stalking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B) (2013), against both an overbreadth challenge and a challenge that it is an unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech, again requiring this Court’s attention. Therefore, the question presented is: Whether the First Circuit erred in upholding 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B) (2013) against a First Amendment challenge by holding that the statute “regulates not speech, but conduct,” creating a circuit split both within the First Circuit and with Eighth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit by way of the District of Maryland on that important issue and by rejecting Petitioner’s overbreadth challenge for lack of “veridical examples” of actual prosecutions under the statute while refusing to consider practical hypotheticals of proscribed protected speech in conflict with United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010), which deepens a circuit split between the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits that have properly applied Stevens and the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits that, like the First Circuit, have flouted Stevens.