Whether Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Should the Court grant certiorari to review whether Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b), categorically fails to constitute “a crime of violence” to support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and to decide whether the district court erred in its instruction because it charged that Hobbs Act Robbery was “a crime of violence”? 2. Should the Court grant certiorari in order to resolve a conflict among the circuits as to whether plain error is established where an indictment fails to set forth an essential element of an offense, the district court fails to instruct a jury as to an essential element of an offense, and a jury returns a verdict of guilty without any finding that an essential element of the offense has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? 3. Should the Court grant certiorari in order to consider whether the district court abused its discretion in: i) permitting introduction of an in-court identification at trial of Walker by his Probation Officer; and ii) permitting introduction of an out-of-court identification of Walker at trial by the alleged robbery victim? 4. Should the Court grant certiorari in order to consider whether the district court appropriately denied Walker’s motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, where he argued: i) Count Three (a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)) should have been dismissed, and that the jury instruction was also in error because Hobbs Act i robbery is categorically not “a crime of violence”; ii) that there was the spoliation of surveillance videos; and iii) an impaired juror deliberated to verdict? 5. Should the Court grant certiorari in order to consider the Panel erred when it found that the district court had wrongly held that New York Robbery in the Second Degree is not a “violent felony” for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act?