Where a federal prisoner demonstrates that ACCA's residual clause was the only lawful substantive basis to enhance his sentence, but fails to show as a historical matter that the sentencing judge was subjectively thinking about ACCA's residual clause, does he satisfy the requirements for a successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2)?

Is Texas burglary of a "habitation" a generic burglary?

Where a federal prisoner demonstrates that ACCA's residual clause was the only lawful substantive basis to enhance his sentence, but fails to show as a historical matter that the sentencing judge was subjectively thinking about ACCA's residual clause, does he satisfy the requirements for a successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2)?