Should a COA issue because reasonable jurists could conclude that Johnson's interpretation of the ACCA's residual clause triggers a Townsend claim against the residual clause of the advisory career offender guideline, given Beckles's acknowledgment that Townsend claims survived its narrow vagueness holding, or because this issue is important enough to justify percolation in the circuit courts?

Should a COA issue because reasonable jurists could conclude that Johnson's interpretation of the ACCA's residual clause triggers a Townsend claim against the residual clause of the advisory career offender guideline, given Beckles's acknowledgment that Townsend claims survived its narrow vagueness holding, or because this issue is important enough to justify percolation in the circuit courts?