I. WHETHER THE APPELLATE COURT ADOPTIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISPOSITIVE PROCEDURAL CONCLUSIONS ERRED IN HOLDING COLONS HAD FAILED TO PROVE ARTICLE III REQUIREMENTS DESPITE HIS PETITION ALLEGED FACTS DEMONSTRATING PROOF OF THE THREE ELEMENTS OF HAVING SUFFERED AN INJURY IN FACT THAT IS FAIRLY TRACEABLE TO THE CHALLENGED CONDUCT OF THE. GOVERNMENT IMPROPERLY IMPOSITION OF THE ENHANCED TWENTY YEAR SENTENCE UNDER THE RESIDUAL CLAUSE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONALIN JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 135 S.CL2551 (2015) THAT IS LIKELY TO BE REDRESSED BY A FAVORABLE JUDICIAL DECISION WAS MORE THEN SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE CASE OR CONTROVERSY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL MINIMUM STANDING OF ARTICLE HI SINCE THE ENHANCED SENTENCE RESULTED IN HIM SERVING FIFTEEN YEARS MORE THEN THE CONVICTION OF TITLE 18 USC § 922(g)(1) AUTHORIZED PREVENTED HIS NEW -JERSEY STATE SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITH PAROLE INELIGIBILITY FOR TWENTY-FIVE-YEARS FROM COMMENCING EARLIER AND HAVING TO SERVE MORE THEN THE TWENTY-FIVE- YEAR MAXIMUM BEFORE BECOMING ELIGIBLE, FOR PAROLE CONSIDERATION RELEASE ON THE STATE ?

IS. WHAT STANDARD OF PROOF DOES THE DEFENDANT AS THE PARTY INVOKING CORAM NOBIS JURISDICTION BEAR IN ORDER TO PROVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL MINIMUM STANDING OF THE THREE ELEMENTS OF ARTICLE III BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT OR PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE?

Whether the appellate court adoptions of the district court dispositive procedural conclusions erred in holding Collins had failed to prove Article III requirements despite his petition alleged facts demonstrating proof of the three elements of having suffered an injury-in-fact that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the government improper imposition of the enhanced twenty year sentence under the residual clause declared unconstitutional in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2554 (2015) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision