Where an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction rests on more than one possible predicate offense, the Shepard documents must conclusively establish that a jury unanimously based its § 924(c) conviction on one constitutionally qualifying predicate offense

question presented is whether courts must apply the modified categorical approach of Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) and Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16 (2005), rather than the fact-based harmless-error review of Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (2008), to determine the legality of the § 924(c) conviction where a jury’s general verdict does not identify the predicate offense. I. Petitioners also ask this Court to address whether aiding and abetting armed bank robbery and substantive armed bank robbery are qualifying crimes of violence under § 924(c)’s force clause. ii