Whether a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) may be sustained based on the reviewing court's finding that the jury relied equally on a valid predicate offense and a predicate offense that was obtained in reliance on the unconstitutionally vague residual clause

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 the 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) may be sustained based on the reviewing court’s finding that the jury relied equally on a valid predicate offense and a predicate offense that was obtained in reliance on the unconstitutionally vague residual clause invalidated in United States v Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019)? i INTERESTED PARTIES Pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 14.1(b)(), Mr. submits that there are no