Whether a Hobbs Act robbery conviction qualifies as a 'crime of violence' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) based on the categorical approach after United States v. Taylor and Mathis v. United States

No question identified. : Solomon’s, petition), was denied on July 9, 2025, with no judge on the Eleventh Circuit dissenting from that denial (United States v. Solomon, et. al., No. 22-11488, Slip op.). Absent an extension of time, the petition would be due on October 7, 2025. Petitioner has not previously sought an extension of time from this Court. Petitioner is filing this Application at least ten (10) days before the due date. See S. Ct. R. 13-5. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). Petitioner is incarcerated serving a sentence of 1,794 months imprisonment for multiple counts of Hobbs Act robbery and using and carrying a firearm during those robberies. On direct appeal, after the district court entered an amended judgment eliminating one § 924(c) count, Petitioner argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction to convict him on the other § 924(c) counts and re-impose the stacked sentences for those counts based on a jurisdictional error that had become clear when this Court in United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (June 21, 2022) rejected the “realistic probability” methodology used in United States v. St. Hubert, 909 F.3d 335, 350 (11" Cir. 2018) to conclude substantive Hobbs Act robbery was categorically a “crime of violence” for 18 USC § 924(c)(3)(A). What controlled under the categorical approach post-T7aylor, Petitioner argued, was simply elementto-element matching, for which the Court needed to determine the “elements” of §1951(b)(1), and the least culpable “means” of conviction. Petitioner explained that the Eleventh Circuit pattern instruction on Hobbs Act robbery (Instruction 070.3) should be considered, as it informs the offense can be committed by a taking of property (including intangible rights) that causes fear of purely financial loss, without fear of any physical violence. On May 15, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit issued a published opinion agreeing that Taylor had indeed abrogated St. Hubert on that point, but nevertheless affirmed Petitioner’s sentence based upon an earlier circuit precedent, Jn re Saint Fleur, 824 F.3d 1337 (11" Cir. 2016), and the circuit’s “prior panel precedent” rule. United States v. Solomon, 136 F.4" 1310 (11" Cir. 2025). Petitioner sought rehearing en banc, urging the full Court to hold that Fleur and other panel precedents adhering to Fleur under the “prior panel precedent” rule were no longer binding since the Fleur panel demonstrably and admittedly did not apply the categorical approach — subsequently clarified in Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) — in analyzing whether Hobbs Act robbery was a “crime of violence” within 18 USC § 924(c)(3)(A). Since the circuit’s “prior panel precedent” did not apply to en banc proceedings, Petitioner asked the full Eleventh Circuit to decide anew whether — after intervening decisions in Mathis and Taylor, and considering the language in the circuit’s pattern jury instruction — Hobbs Act robbery was a qualifying “crime of violence” for § 924(c)(3)(A). On July 9, 2025, the Court denied the request for rehearing en banc. United States v. Solomon, et. al., No. 11488, Slip op. (11" Cir. July 9, 2025). No judge on the Eleventh Circuit dissented from the denial. Although this Court’s rules require that a petition for writ of certiorari be filed within 90 days of the denial of rehearing (by October 7, 2025), undersigned counsel will not be able to file the petition by that date and will need an additional 30 days to do so. First, the Circuit’s decision presents an issue of great importance and conflicts with the reasoning and analysis of decisions by other circuits and this Court. The issue is of fundamental importance to multiple constitutional and statutory interpretation issues. The issue may warrant granting a writ of certiorari and will require substantial additional legal research and review by counsel, including as to circuit conflicts. The issue is complex. Briefing in the Eleventh Circuit was extensive, and t