(1) DOES THIS COURTS DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. DAVIS 588 U.S. 139 S.Ct.2319 (2019) HOLDING THAT 18.U.S.C S 924()(3)(B) IS ALSO UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE, ALTER THE RANGE OF CONDUCT OR CLASS OF PERSONS THAT THE LAW PUNISHES SUCH THAT UNDER TEAGUE V.LANE 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), DAVIS SUPRA, IS A NEW SUBSTANTIVE RULE?

(2) IF UNITED STATES V. DAVIS, 588 U.S. 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019) IS A NEW SUBSTANTIVE RULE DOES ITS HOLDING IN COMBINATION WITH WELCH V. UNITED STATES 578 U.S. 136 S.Ct. 1269-65, 1268 COMPEL THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ENUNCIATIONS OF DAVIS SUPRA SHOULD BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO 18 U.S.C.S 924()(3)(B) ISSUES THAT WERE ALREADY ON APPEAL AT THE TIME OF ITS JUNE 24th 2019 RELEASE?

(3) WHERE, IF DETERMINED THAT UNITED STATES V. DAVIS, 588 U.S. 139 S.Ct 2319 (2019) IS A NEW SUBSTANTIVE RULE WHICH MUST BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT TO CASES ON COLLATERAL REVIEW, DID THE NINTH CIRCUIT COMMIT CLEAR ERROR AND THUS OFFEND THE PETITIONERS EQUALITY OF LAW BY REFUSING TO APPLY THE NEW RULE AD THIS INSTANT CASE, BEING A FIRST FILED 28 U.S.C.S 2255, IN CONTRADICTION TO THE IDEAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE?

Whether the retroactive application of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019) holding 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) as unconstitutionally vague should be applied to the petitioner's case, which was already on appeal at the time of the Davis decision, thus requiring the reversal of his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)