Whether the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of aiding and abetting bank robbery as a 'crime of violence' under 924(c)(3)(A) sidesteps the categorical approach and conflicts with other circuits, and whether 18 U.S.C. 2113(a) exceeds Congress's enumerated powers by extending federal jurisdiction to intrastate robberies

This case presents questions of expectional national importance with implications for the uniformity of federal criminal law and the protection of constitutional rights. The Fifth Circuit ’s interpretation of aiding and abetting bank robbery as a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3) sidesteps the categorical approach, conflicts with other circuits, and exposes defendants to overbroad and unpredictable liability. Simultaneously, the statutory and jurisdictional reach of 18 U.S.C. 2113(a), including reliance on the "substantial effects ” test, raises legal and constitutional questions concerning federal prosecutorial authority, the government's burden to establish jurisdiction, Congress's limited authority, and limits of the Necessary and Proper Clause. QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1) Whether the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of aiding and abetting bank robbery as a "crime of violence" under 924(c)(3)(A) sidesteps the categorical approach, conflicts with other circuits and deprives defendants of due process under the Fifth Amendment? 2) Whether 18 U.S.C. 2113(a) exceeds Congress's enumerated powers by extending federal jurisdiction to intrastate robberies under the "substantial effects ” test?