Whether the lower court clearly abused its discretion and prejudiced the petitioner by materially objecting to the charged Hobbs Act offense as a non-listed violation of aiding and abetting a substantive Hobbs Act robbery, rather than the underlying evidence of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery

ESTION) PRESENTED . . 1) DA Ge lower court clearly abuse its discretion Gad Pre jedice Lebiponer by bnten tierially ouiecting fie charged Avena oftense fa a 110 Listed Violation of, GANG aA abetting a sib stanl Ve YobOS Ae pblay, father fart faé enderiyiy eblente of conspiracy fo Cont pobbs feb: tobbery/ , 2) Lid 4A 2 Jo # COUfF clearly abuse 1% MSCS 24or by olleg 11g ont reC06ak Phat Jebbofer hed been changed VA iolating a SLE fan vive Yobbs Ad PLAY ofteuse, hihen Yhe evidence presented ah Veceral elearly SetS forte a Lon spiracy Jo cont Hobbs lt robbery & 3) Lan the Stat slory /angvage Ce, elements) Land ia JE OSE. /48/ Ca), When Viewed in Sue Lorde of A sub ~ Shan hile onder lying of (ele, conéinve pp support WA 1S USC. — FILICEDIA enhancement. yuhen fae exact same substantive Statele (TSI) tals fo quality as beitg a vio tert crime When YWevwted in Phe cortex of a Pier conwieton. <