This Court holds various residual clauses are unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause, but has not yet addressed the residual clause in the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines in effect before United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Circuits are split on this issue, resulting in unequal relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for those serving pre-Booker career offender sentences resting on U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2)'s residual clause. Had Mr. Williams been sentenced in the First, Seventh, or D.C. Circuits, his pre-Booker mandatory career offender sentence would have received review under § 2255. Because his prior state conviction does not qualify as a crime of violence under either the enumerated or force clauses of the then-mandatory guideline, his sentence is unconstitutional. Resolution by this Court is necessary to ensure equal application of review under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for unconstitutional sentences.

Whether the residual clause in the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines is unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause, resulting in unequal relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for those serving pre-Booker career offender sentences