whether criminal-conduct-beyond-scope-of-charging-statute-is-jurisdictional-defect-or-plain-error

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED This Case presents On Impoctant Nationwide \5Sve Concerning Subject mattrec Jurisdiction. there 15 a Ciccurk Split betweew the \Wth vs 1st) 8th and lorhywhile the rest of She Liccurcts Cemain uvdecded in the wake of United stokes VS Cotton 122 5.ct 118102002): Regarding Criminal Conduct being beyond the Scope of +he Chacg ing Stature) whether y's & jucisdichonal defect oc merely Plain eccot, See \\*th Circuth uncded states Vv Peterg 310 €.39 (2002). See loth Ciccurt United states V De Vaughn and US. Vv Secuagss TH F.3cA 258 )262 C5th Cve-2013))zs tb wot a jueisdichional defect F *he alleged Crimival Conduct Fa\\s oukside yrne Scope oe he Cred Stoture 2, 2) vis Con ress exeand Lhe Scope ok \ou-se 24226, +O eN COMPOSS “persoval vehi Aes Aran spochiny Wekims OCCOSS srarel\ines ‘2 a)xs thece NOX OW Lime limit to resolve a Challenge — ‘Ao ~ 2? | Ap Sobyecr matter Jutisdycrion % 4) \inetner Ve Residual Clause IW 18 LSC 29226 | 1S Unconstibubiow ally V0 1d —Fol~V Aguevess) “sexual Activity” ? !