Whether the lower courts' affirmance of English's conviction on the basis of a theory not charged in the indictment or argued to the jury and advanced for the first time to the district court after trial violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and this Court's holding in Dunn v. United States

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether the lower courts’ affirmance of English’s conviction on the basis of a theory not charged in the indictment or argued to the jury and advanced for the first time to the district court after trial violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and this Court’s holding in Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100, 99 S.Ct. 2190, 60 L.Ed.2d 748 (1979) because the conviction could not have been sustained based on the legally insufficient theory charged in the indictment and argued to the jury. Whether an ambiguous text message sent to an alleged, unindicted coconspirator is sufficient to prove the “use” of an “instrumentality of interstate... commerce” in the commission of or in furtherance of the commission of kidnapping as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1), and whether, if not, English’s conviction on Count Nine must be vacated because the Government’s evidence at trial failed to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. i