1. Whether this Court should grant, vacate, and remand
this case, where Petitioner filed a § 2255 claiming that
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015),
rendered the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
unconstitutionally vague, where the Ninth Circuit
denied that claim on timeliness grounds because this
Court had not yet applied Johnson to that statute, and
where this Court is set to address Johnson's impact on
Section 924(c) this term in United States v. Davis, 18431.

2. Whether a § 2255 motion filed within one year of
Johnson, claiming that Johnson invalidates the
residual clause of the pre-Booker career offender
guideline, asserts a "right .. . initially recognized" in
Johnson for timeliness purposes under 28 U.S.C. §
2255(f)(3).

Whether the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is unconstitutionally vague