Whether the Court should grant Luong's petition for a writ of certiorari, vacate the Ninth Circuit's judgment, and remand for further proceedings in light of Taylor

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner John Luong filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, arguing that the statute underlying his convictions for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), was unconstitutionally vague under this Court’s decisions in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), and United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). The district court and Ninth Circuit rejected Luong’s arguments, concluding that his predicate offense supporting his section 924(c) Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951—was a crime of violence under section 924()’s elements clause. The Ninth Circuit relied solely on its prior decision in United States v. Dominguez, 954 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2020), to reach this conclusion. But this Court later issued an order in Dominguez that granted certiorari, vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment, and remanded in light of United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022). See Dominguez v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2857 (2022). And the Ninth Circuit has since remanded Dominguez back to the district court, leaving the Dominguez opinion vacated. The question presented is: Whether the Court should grant Luong’s petition for a writ of certiorari, vacate the Ninth Circuit’s judgment, and remand for further proceedings in light of Taylor. i