In Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) , 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 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 an identical residual clause in the Career Offender provision of the Sentencing Guidelines was not unconstitutionally vague. See USSG § 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 .

The Beckles Court , however, "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 j udgment) (citations omitted).

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

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

1. Whether U SSG § 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 invalid ation of § 4B1.2(a)(2)'s mandatory residual clause applies retr oactively on collateral review .

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