Does a post-conviction motion asserting the following claim—that a sentence violates due process under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), because it was dictated by the residual clause of the pre-Booker mandatory Sentencing Guidelines—qualify as a motion that "assert[s]" the "right . . . initially recognized" in Johnson within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3)?

Does a post-conviction motion asserting a claim that a sentence violates due process under Johnson v. United States because it was dictated by the residual clause of the pre-Booker mandatory Sentencing Guidelines qualify as a motion that 'asserts' the 'right . . . initially recognized' in Johnson within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3)?