Whether the governments arguments are incorrectly that the Supreme Court's ruling in Johnson v. United States, 135 s. ct. 2551 (2015), is "procedural-as-applied" to guideline sentences and therefore, does not apply retroactively to Mr. Bolton's case on collateral review?

Since the residual clause is invalid under Johnson "can the residual clause any longer mandate or authorize any sentence? When this court made it clear in Welch, 136, 5. ct. at 1256 that it can no longer do so?

Did the trial court commit legal error when it determined that the Defendant qualified as a career ottender based on a conviction in State Court for Aggravated Assault, where the State Statute § 39-13-102(c) does not categorically meet the "use of force" clause requirements and thus is not a predicate "crime of violence" that allows for enhancement to career offender status under the residual clause?

Whether the Court Of Appeals committed legal error when it determined district court 'did not misapprehend or overlook any point law reviewing Petitioner's Argument stating in light of United States v. Mathis, No. 15-0609 (Decided June 23, 2016) that conviction of Tennessee drug statue § 39-17-417 is broader than the Federal Definition of a controlled substance is a violation of the Due Process Clause?

Whether Petitioner's right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated on direct appeal when counsel failed to consult with Petitioner concerning his right to direct appeal: failed to make a reasonable effort to discover the Petitioner's desire to appeal and counsel failed to file a notice of appea1 or file brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 875 s. Ct. as required by Doe v. Flores S. 28 U.S. 470, 120 S. ct. 1029 145 L. Ed. 2d. 985 (2000)?

Whether the government's arguments are incorrectly that the Supreme Court's ruling in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), is 'procedural-as-applied' to guideline sentences and therefore, does not apply retroactively to Mr. Bolton's case on collateral review?