The American judicial system is a “party-present- ation system” in which courts are to decide only the claims and defenses raised by the parties. United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. 371, 375-376 (2020).

The Question Presented is:

Whether a court violates the party-presentation principle, due process, and the Seventh Amendment by eranting dispositive relief based on a non-jurisdictional legal theory never raised by the parties.

May a federal court look to surrounding circumstances to deem a state court opinion’s otherwise explicit reliance on a procedural violation ambiguous, and thus apply Harris vu. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 263 (1989) to presume that the state court decided a federal question?

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

Benjamin Tolle, Petitioner/Appellant below.

Ryan LeGore, Respondent, succeeded Troy Bowser, Appellee below, as the Superintendent of the Two Rivers Correctional Institute. See Sup. Ct. R. 35.3.

RELATED PROCEEDINGS

Tolle v. Bowser, No. 24-5862, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (denying petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc on March 30, 2026).

Tolle v. Bowser, No. 24-5862, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (affirming denial of habeas petition on February 19, 2026).

Tolle v. Bowser, No. 2:18-cv-01996, United States District Court for the District of Oregon (adopting in part the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations and issuing a certificate of appealability on August 20, 2024).

This petition presents two questions.

First, whether the Fifth Circuit’s continued reliance on Hollis v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2016) and refusal to require the government to prove a historical tradition of firearm regulation under this Court’s Second Amendment framework conflicts with N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)?

Second, should the Court hold this petition pending the outcome of Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238 (U.S. Jun. 30, 2026), and Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566 (U.S. Jun. 30, 2026), given lower courts’ determinations that for Second Amendment purposes, AR-15’s are indistinguishable from M16 machineguns?

1

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1) requires proof that the defendant personally acted for the purpose of gaining entrance to, or maintaining or increasing his own position in, a racketeering enterprise, where the government concedes he already held full membership.

2. Whether a jury instruction permitting conviction where the killing was merely ’an integral aspect of membership in the enterprise’, language used in pattern instructions across multiple circuits, impermissibly relieves the government of proving that statutory purpose element.

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

The parties to the proceedings in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals include the United States of America and Petitioner Wilber Vigil-Benitez. There are no parties to the proceedings other than those named in the petition.

1