Whether § 924(c)'s residual clause, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), is unconstitutionally vague after Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (Samuel Johnson), and Sessions v. Dimaya, _ U.S. —, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018).

Whether carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119), which may be committed by intimidation alone, has as an element "the use . . . of physical force against the person or property of another," under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A).

Whether the Eleventh Circuit's rule that reasonable jurists could not debate an issue foreclosed by binding circuit precedent misapplies the standard articulated by this Court in Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003), and more recently in Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773–74 (2017), for determining whether a movant has made the threshold showing necessary to obtain a certificate of appealability (COA).

Whether § 924(c)'s residual clause, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), is unconstitutionally vague after Johnson v. United States, 1385 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and Sessions v. Dimaya, ___ U.S. __, 188 8. Ct. 1204 (2018)