Whether petitioner's §924(c) conviction based on an attempted Hobbs Act robbery should be vacated in light of United States v. Taylor

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner was convicted of, inter alia, a §924(c) offense based on an attempted Hobbs Act robbery, notwithstanding this Court’s recent determination in United States v. Taylor, 20-1459 (June 21, 2022) holding that attempted Hobbs Act robbery cannot validly serve as a §924(c) predicate. In addition, the Second Circuit relying on Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (2010) (MVRA’s time prescriptions are merely time-related directives) and United States v. Martin, 662 F.3d 301 (4th Cir. 2011) (applying Dolan to Rule 32.2, Fed. R. Crim. P.) rejected petitioner’s argument that the district court’s forfeiture order was invalid because contrary to the requirements of Rule 32.2(b) the government failed to submit a preliminary order of forfeiture until more than two-and-half years after sentencing, and the government also failed to comply with the district court’s direction that it provide a formal order of forfeiture within one week of sentencing. The Sixth Circuit in United States v. Maddux, 37 F. Ath 1170 (6th Cir. 2022) rejected both the decision below and Martin, concluding that Rule 32.2 was a mandatory claim processing rule preventing forfeiture in that case. The Eighth Circuit in United States v. Shakur, 691 F.3d 979 (8th Cir. 2011) went even further, holding that Rule 32.2’s mandates are jurisdictional, and a court lacks the “power to enter” forfeiture once Rule 32.2’s deadlines have passed. Finally, petitioner was also convicted of Hobbs Act robbery and a corresponding §942(c) offense based on his theft of cash from an individual’s home. The Solicitor General candidly admitted in a prior case before this Court that: i when there's a robbery of an individual, the links [to Commerce] are much more attenuated and there's a longer chain of causation to get to commerce. And so in those contexts, even within the depletion of assets theory that my brother espouses before the Court, the courts have said, as a normal matter, robberies of individuals just don't fall within the Commerce Clause. Taylor v. United States, 14-6166 (Transcript of Oral Argument, Feb, 23, 2016) at 23-24. Despite this concession the Second Circuit upheld petitioner’s conviction under the depletion of assets theory, a theory that when applied to an individual effectively eviscerates the “interstate commerce” element and raises serious Federalism concerns. This petition raises the following questions: 1. Whether petitioner’s §924(c) conviction based on an attempted Hobbs Act robbery should be vacated in light of United States v. Taylor? 2. Whether a district court may enter a forfeiture order outside the time limitations set forth in Rule 32.2 3. Is the theft of cash from an individual sufficient to satisfy the “interstate commerce” element of 18 U.S.C. §1951 a necessary predicate for federal jurisdiction of what is otherwise local criminal conduct that should be prosecuted by the individual states? ii