Whether a §924(c) 'Possession In furtherance of' offense requires geographical location proof when possession is alleged to have occurred simultaneously in two different states, and whether the government can indict for one charge but theorize a different trial strategy involving conspiracy and firearm possession

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the §924(c)(1)(A) ‘Possession In furtherance of! offense conduct require gleographical location be proved as alleged in indictment, when ONE POSSESSION is specified to have occurred on or about the same date simultaneously in two different states? : 2. Can the government idict me for one charge of ‘Possession! of a firearm 'In furtherance of! a drug traffickiny crime, but theorize its trial case as if it charged me with §924(0) ‘Conspiracy to possess a firearm' 'In furtherance of', and/or ‘Use and Carry' of a firearm 'Durinl and in relation to' a drug traffickiny crime!? 3. Does this court's ruling! in United States v. Rodriduez—Moreno, 526 U.S. 275 (1999) Venue ruling, apply to my case, since Rodriguez was charged with 'Use and Carry' of a firearm 'During and In Relation to' a crime of violence, but I was charged with ONE COUNT of ‘Possession In . furtherance' of a drug conspiracy, alleged to have operated in another state? 4. Can the Conjlress legislated definition in §924(c)(1)(A)'s "Any Drug Trafficking Offense" content, act as a prophylactic to shield an unqualified 'Conspiracy' predicate, deemed not to meet the Model Penal Code Categorical Approach requirement, and continue to penalize me with , 25-years leaving me no Due Process to defend aYainst its application? 5. Is the §924(c) possession 'In fustherance of! offense conduct element Unconstitutionally Vague, and infringing upon my due process, in light of the fact(s) that: there are Circuit wide conflictin!! standards of ; proving conduct; Since its enactment it has given jurors a great degree : 2 of quess work and imalfined scenarios to determine 'Nexus', and in cases like mine it Yave the Yovernment the advantale to mix the ‘in furtherance of! conspiracy acts with the ‘in furtherance of! firearm Possession acts, causinl a presumptive guilt in the mind of the jurors? 6, Dnes the Fourth Circuit's rulinll in my case, affirming my conviction based on the WRONG offense conduct constitute a 'Travesty of Justice’, calling for a panel rehearinY en banc, to re-examine the trial record?