Should this Court abrogate the judicially established Pinkerton doctrine

Questions Presented Should this Court abrogate the judicially established Pinkerton doctrine, announced in Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946), holding that a conspirator can be charged with and convicted of crimes committed by his coconspirators, if the crimes were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy and were reasonably foreseeable to the conspirator, even though the conspirator did not agree with or participate in the commission of the crime? Does the Pinkerton doctrine, which judicially criminalizes an act without any legislative authority making the act a crime, conflict with this Court’s holdings in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), teaching that punishment may be imposed only upon a jury finding (or an admission in a guilty plea) that the legislatively established elements or ingredients of a crime have been proven? In the context of Mr. Becton’s guilty plea, did the application of the Pinkerton doctrine violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and the prohibition against judge-made common-law crimes? il