1. In Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1 (1999), this Court held that an "empty threat" of violence is not sufficient to demonstrate that a person charged with carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119, has the necessary intent, to cause serious bodily harm or death, to be convicted of that offense. In this case, Petitioner brandished a firearm he knew was unloaded and made threats while stealing a vehicle. The question presented is whether there was sufficient additional evidence presented that Petitioner acted with the intent necessary to sustain his conviction for carjacking and his related conviction for possession of a firearm in connection with a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

2. In Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), this Court held that the prosecution's obligation to disclose exculpatory material from Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), extended to material that would impeach prosecution witnesses. In this case, the Government withheld statements of key witnesses made during preparation for trial that contradicted earlier given statements in ways that bolstered the Government's case with regard to the intent element of carjacking. The issue presented is whether the district court erred by denying Petitioner a new trial based on the Government's failure to disclose those statements.

Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for carjacking and possession of a firearm in connection with a crime of violence when the defendant brandished an unloaded firearm