Whether a court must apply the modified categorical approach to determine whether a verdict of conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) necessarily rests on a valid predicate offense

QUESTION PRESENTED The jury in this case was instructed that it could convict Petitioner under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) based on one of several accused crimes. The court of appeals held, however, that at least one of the crimes the jury was allowed to consider was not, in fact, a valid predicate “crime of violence” under § 924(c). The jury verdict and the record do not reveal whether the jury relied on the erroneous predicate offense in convicting Petitioner under § 924(c). Notwithstanding that ambiguity, however, the court of appeals affirmed Petitioner’s § 924(c) conviction because the jury merely could have relied on a valid crime of violence, and refused to apply the modified categorical approach to determine whether the verdict necessarily relied on a crime of violence. The question presented is: Whether a court must apply the modified categorical approach to determine whether a verdict of conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) necessarily rests on a valid predicate offense, as this Court directed in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), and Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), or whether it may affirm such a § 924(c) conviction if it is merely possible that the jury relied on a valid predicate offense. @