I. Whether Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015),
applies retroactively to a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion attacking a
conviction and sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(8) so
that such a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion filed within a year of the
Johnson decision is timely?

II. Whether the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3) is
unconstitutionally vague pursuant to Johnson v. United States,
135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and thus, whether appellant, Mr. Erik
Lindsey Smith, is actually innocent of his conviction and
sentence imposed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)?

III. Whether the Eleventh Circuit's rule that reasonable jurists
could not debate an issue foreclosed by binding circuit precedent,
even where a judge on the panel issuing the binding precedent
subsequently states the panel's decision may be erroneous,
misapplies the standard articulated by this Court in Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003), and more recently in
Buck v. Davis, 187 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017), for determining
whether a movant has made the threshold showing necessary to
obtain a certificate of appealability (COA)?

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)'s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague under Johnson v. United States