SCOTUS Rule 10(a) - Whether or not a Circuit Split has arisen between the Fourth Circuit and other Circuits over the interpretation of whether crimes allegedly "committed on occasions different from one another " [See 18 U.S.C. §924(e)(l)] become simultaneous crimes if the directly-associated arrest warrants for those sequential alleged crimes were sworn out and/or served simultaneously.

SCOTUS Rule 10(a) - Whether or not a Circuit Split has arisen between the Fourth Circuit and both this SCOTUS and the Fourth Circuit itself over the Federal Court Practice (FRCP Rule 56; U.S. Amendment VII Right to Trial by Jury) of viewing all facts in a Summary Judgment Proceeding and drawing any justifiable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party when deciding if there exists genuine issues as to any material fact requiring a Trial by Jury.

SCOTUS Rule 10(c) - [Petitioner] moves this [SCOTUS] as he did the [VAED & Fourth Circuit] for a Declaratory Judgment that Virginia is in violation of the U.S. Guarantee Clause so [the U.S.] Congress might act by applying the U.S. Guarantee Clause against Virginia 's 1971 Constitution of Virginia, Article VI which establishes an Unrepublican Form of Government because Sections 1 & 2 are in violation of the U.S. Supremacy Clause and Section 7 is in violation of Duncan v. McCall. 139 U.S. 449, 461, 11 S.Ct. 573, 577 (1891).

Whether a Circuit Split has arisen over the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. §924(e)(1) regarding simultaneous crimes