Whether a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is unconstitutional when the Shepard documents do not clearly establish that a jury unanimously based its § 924(c) conviction on one constitutionally qualifying predicate offense

Questions Presented for Review 1. Petitioner Stain asks this Court to address whether a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is unconstitutional when the Shepard documents do not clearly establish that a jury unanimously based its § 924(c) conviction on one constitutionally qualifying predicate offense. Here, the government conceded that one possible predicate longer qualifies as a § 924(c) predicate, given United States v. Davis, 139 8. Ct. 2319 (2019). The Fourth Circuit holds that for ambiguous § 924(c) convictions, courts are to apply the modified categorical approach, limiting review to the Shepard documents, and if one predicate offense does not qualify, courts must vacate the § 924(c) conviction. Yet the Ninth Circuit failed to apply modified categorical analysis to the ambiguous § 924(c) convictions, creating an incongruous result requiring review by this Court. 2. Petitioner Stain also asks this Court to address whether aiding and abetting Hobbs act robbery, aiding and abetting armed bank robbery, substantive Hobbs Act robbery, and substantive armed bank robbery are qualifying crimes of violence under § 924(c)’s force clause. Circuits have failed to apply categorical analysis to aiding and abetting’s distinct elements, which do not meet the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)’s force clause. Circuits have also interpreted, post-Johnson, the Hobbs Act robbery and armed bank robbery statutes statute too narrowly and against the statutory plain language to now require intentional violent physical force as an element. ii