(1) Whether, where the record is unclear, a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petitioner should be required to "affirmatively prove" that the sentencing court relied on the residual clause to determine that his prior offenses were violent felonies, before he is entitled to relief under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).

(2) Whether a district court may rely on current law to evaluate whether a sentencing judge could have relied on the ACCA's enumerated offense clause to determine that a defendant's prior convictions qualified as violent felonies.

(3) Whether the concurrent sentencing doctrine bars § 2255 relief merely because a district court hypothetically could have run a defendant's sentences consecutively rather than concurrently to reach the sentence imposed.

Whether a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petitioner must affirmatively prove the sentencing court relied on the residual clause