Whether a sentence predicated upon a finding that Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the elements clause in 18 U.S.C § 924 (c) violates the 'vagueness' doctrine

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether a sentence predicated upon a finding that Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the elements clause in 18 U.S.C § 924 (c) violates the “vagueness” doctrine. After a Hobbs Act robbery goes awry, whether the application of sentencing enhancements based on subsequent criminal acts undertaken solely by a coconspirator violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, where the conduct was neither in furtherance of the planned criminal activity, nor submitted to a jury to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. i LIST OF INTERESTED PARTIES Petitioner, Jerome Simmons, hereby certifies that the following persons have an interest in the outcome of this case: 1. Anton, Jodi 2. Brinson, Christopher 3. Caruso, Michael 4, C.K. 5. Della Ferra, Richard F. 6. Fajardo Orshan, Ariana 7. Garland, Jeffrey H. 8. Greenberg, Benjamin G. 9. Haddad, Christopher 10. Hardy, Adrian 11. Hopkins, Hon. James K. 12. JK. 13. LSO Jewelers and Repairs 14. Marks, Neison M. 15. Marra, Hon. Kenneth A. 16. Matthewman, Hon. William 17. Matzkin, Daniel 18. Meadows, Robert B. 19. Moore, Emmory 20. Mulvihill, Thomas J. 21. Murrell, Larry D. 22. O’Donnell, John F. 23. Rodriguez, Jr., Valentin ii 24. Seltzer, Hon. Barry 8. 25. Simmons, Jerome 26. Smachetti, Emily M. 27. Valle, Hon., Alicia O. 28. White, Anita iii