Where a Brady violation has rendered constitutionally infirm the conviction of a defendant who was alleged to be the principal in the commission of an offense, does the infirmity in the principal's conviction warrant new trial relief for petitioners who were convicted, in a joint trial with the principal, of aiding and abetting the principal and does the availability of relief to petitioners turn on whether the principal individually requests and receives new trial relief?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The court of appeals ruled that of a 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) offense on an aiding and abetting theory, see Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014) (requiring proof that principal committed § 924(c) offense and defendant knowingly aided the principal)—could not prevail on their motions for new trial even though the district court order in petitioners’ case adopted the magistrate judge’s finding that the principal’s § 924(c) conviction was constitutionally infirm because of a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The court of appeals concluded that the district court’s later acceptance of a settlement agreement between the government and the principal, in which the principal abandoned his own motion for new trial on the § 924(c) count of conviction and agreed to the vacating of other counts instead, precluded petitioners’ reliance on the Brady violation as a basis for new trial relief. The question presented is: Where a Brady violation has rendered constitutionally infirm the conviction of a defendant who was alleged to be the principal in the commission of an offense, does the infirmity in the principal’s conviction warrant new trial relief for petitioners who were convicted, in a joint trial with the principal, of aiding and abetting the principal and does the availability of relief to petitioners turn on whether the principal individually requests and receives new trial relief? i INTERESTED PARTIES The sole party to the proceeding other than those named in the caption of the case is: Daniel Mack (co-defendant) ii