Whether a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) that was obtained in reliance on the unconstitutionally vague residual clause may be sustained based on the reviewing court's finding that the jury additionally relied on one or more valid bases to convict

QUESTION PRESENTED “It has long been settled that when a case is submitted to the jury on alternative theories the unconstitutionality of any of the theories requires that the conviction be set aside.” Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 31-32 (1969) (citing Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931)). Such errors are not structural, and do not require reversal in the absence of prejudice. Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (2008) (per curiam). Pulido, however, left the standard by which harmlessness is to be assessed in this context unspecified. The question was again left unresolved in Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010), after the Court held that one of theories under which the defendant may have been convicted of fraud was invalid. The government argued that error is harmless when a conviction based on a legally invalid theory logically entails conviction on a legally valid theory. The defendant argued that the government must show that the “conviction rested only” on the legally valid theory. See Skilling, 561 U.S. at 414. The Court “[left] this dispute for resolution on remand” id., and the circuits are in disarray. The question presented is: Whether a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), that was obtained in reliance on the unconstitutionally vague residual clause invalidated in United States v Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019), may be sustained based on the reviewing court’s finding that the jury additionally relied on one or more valid bases to convict. i INTERESTED PARTIES Pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 14.1(b)(i), Mr. Martin submits that there are no