1. Whether an officer’s access of an automatic license plate reader database, which indiscriminately collects and stores personally identifying information and location history and allows for the access of such information retrospectively, constitutes a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.

2. Whether a firearm that is capable of automatic fire is an “Arm|[]” within the meaning of the Second Amendment.

1

In Honeycutt v. United States, 581 U.S. 448 (2017), this Court held that the word “obtained” in the criminal-forfeiture statute, 21 U.S.C. § 8538(a), limits forfeiture to property the defendant actually acquired and forecloses joint-and-several liability for proceeds that his co-conspirators obtained. The operative language of 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A)—the statute under which petitioner was ordered to forfeit “proceeds the person obtained directly or indirectly’ —is identical.

The district court ordered petitioner to forfeit $6,554,250 on the express ground that the sum represented “approximately forty-five percent of the total proceeds the Defendant jointly obtained with her co-conspirators.” Pet. App. 4a & n.1l. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed petitioner’s appeal without reaching that question, enforcing the appeal waiver in her plea agreement under a categorical rule this Court recently abrogated in Hunter v. United States, 608 U.S. ___, 146 8S. Ct. 1702 (2026).

The question presented 1s:

Whether, in light of Hunter, an appeal waiver may be enforced to bar review of a criminal forfeiture order imposing joint-and-several liability for proceeds the defendant did not obtain—a form of forfeiture that 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A), as construed in Honeycutt v. United States, does not authorize.

1

To determine whether a prior state conviction qualifies as a predicate under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), federal courts apply the categorical approach. Under that approach, federal courts identify the elements of the state offense. To do so, they must consult state court decisions interpreting the state statute. This case involves the following, recurring scenario: after the defendant’s prior state conviction, a state court issues a decision changing the scope of the offense elements 1n a manner that would affect whether the offense qualifies under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

The question presented 1s:

To determine the elements of a prior state conviction for purposes of applying ACCA’s categorical approach, should federal courts consult the most recent, authoritative state court decisions (as the Eleventh Circuit holds), or the state court decisions 1n place at the time of the defendant’s prior conviction (as at least two other circuits hold)?

1

1. Whether the Constitutional rights to confront witnesses and to present a defense require that Federal Rule Of Evidence 613(b) be interpreted to require the admission of evidence undermining a cooperating witness’s claim that he had given the same account from the beginning of his cooperation ?

2. Whether Federal Rule Of Evidence 613(b) requires that testimony be admitted that would undermine a cooperating witness’s claim that he had given the same account from the beginning of his cooperation?

1