(1) Whether the concurrent sentence doctrine should be applied to deny § 2255 relief when one of a set of multiple sentences is now invalid because of a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive on collateral review by the Supreme Court that was previously unavailable?

(2) Whether application of Johnson v. United States, 1385 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), to the virtually identical residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 3559(), requires a new rule of constitutional law, or merely requires a straightforward application of Johnson's reasoning to that statute.

Whether the concurrent sentence doctrine should be applied to deny § 2255 relief