In Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (Samuel Johnson), this Court declared the Armed Career Criminal Act's (ACCA) residual clause unconstitutionally vague. In Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016), this Court held that Samuel Johnson announced a new, substantive rule of constitutional law that applied retroactively on collateral review.

In Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017), this Court held that an identical residual clause in the Career Offender provision of the Sentencing Guidelines was not unconstitutionally vague. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). The Court reasoned that the advisory Guidelines were not subject to the constitutional vagueness prohibition because, unlike the ACCA, they do not "fix the permissible range of sentences." Beckles, 137 S. Ct. at 892.

However, the Beckles Court "le[ft] open the question whether defendants sentenced to terms of imprisonment before our decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)—that is, during the period in which the Guidelines did fix the permissible range of sentences—may mount vagueness attacks on their sentences." Id. at 903 n.4 (Sotomayor, J., concurring in the judgment) (citations omitted).

Mr. Churchwell moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that after Samuel Johnson and Beckles, his career-offender sentence, which was imposed under the mandatory Guidelines, is unconstitutional. That district court denied the motion, holding that Samuel Johnson does not apply to the mandatory Guidelines, and both the district court and the Eleventh Circuit denied Mr. Churchwell a certificate of appealability (COA).

The broad question presented by this petition is whether the Eleventh Circuit erroneously denied Mr. Churchwell COA on whether his sentence is unconstitutional after Samuel Johnson. More specifically, however, this petition presents the narrow questions of whether reasonable jurists can debate the following issues:

1. Whether U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2)'s residual clause is void for vagueness with respect to defendants sentenced under the pre-Booker mandatory Guidelines.

2. Whether the invalidation of § 4B1.2(a)(2)'s mandatory residual clause applies retroactively on collateral review.

Whether U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2)'s residual clause is void for vagueness with respect to defendants sentenced under the pre-Booker mandatory Guidelines