I. Where an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction rests on more than one possible predicate offense, the Shepard documents must conclusively establish that a jury unanimously based its § 924(c) conviction on one constitutionally qualifying predicate offense. Here, the government concedes that one possible predicate offense—conspiracy—no longer qualifies as a § 924(c) predicate for Petitioners' convictions in light of United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). For habeas challenges to ambiguous § 924(c) trial convictions, circuits are split as to the applicable review. The Fourth Circuit holds this Court's modified categorical approach applies, which limits review to the Shepard documents, and held that if one predicate offense does not qualify, the Court must vacate the § 924(c) conviction. In contrast, the Ninth Circuit applied a fact-based harmless-error review by examining the trial evidence to affirm Petitioners' § 924(c) convictions. The question presented is whether courts must apply the modified categorical approach of Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) and Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16 (2005), rather than the fact-based harmless-error review of Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (2008), to determine the legality of the § 924(c) conviction where a jury's general verdict does not identify the predicate offense.

II. Petitioners also ask this Court to address whether aiding and abetting armed bank robbery and substantive armed bank robbery are qualifying crimes of violence under § 924(c)'s force clause.

Where an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction rests on more than one possible predicate offense, the Shepard documents must conclusively establish that a jury unanimously based its § 924(c) conviction on one constitutionally qualifying predicate offense