Whether there was a sufficient final determination by the trial court such that the Circuit Court could have reached a determination of the substantive merits

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner filed a Motion for New Trial based upon newly discovered evidence in the form of a recanting affidavit from a material witness. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Motion was denied by the trial court. Petitioner appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The parties briefed the substantive issue and the issue of finality was not raised by either party. Prior to the filing of the appeal and during the pendency of the Motion for New Trial, Petitioner filed a Motion pursuant to Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) in the trial court.! In Johnson, this Court held that the Residual Clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague and in violation of due process. That issue remains pending before the trial court. The Circuit Court did not reach the merits of petitioner’s argument concerning the Motion for New Trial based upon newly discovered evidence. Rather, the Circuit Court dismissed the appeal following legal argument on grounds that there was not a final determination because the am issue remains pending before the trial court. Thus, the questions presented are, 1. Whether there was a sufficient final determination by the trial court such that the Circuit Court could have reached a determination of the substantive merits. 2. Whether a conflict exists within the Circuit Courts of Appeal of and this Court concerning the meaning of a final judgment. 1 The issue pending before the trial court is whether the federal carjacking statute constitutes a crime of violence and whether the federal carjacking charge can be reinstated. The parties have briefed the issue and the trial court has the issue under advisement. i