1) Could so-called "jurors of reason" disagree with the district
court's conclusion that precedent is made "ambiguous" when a
derivative case is "remanded for reconsideration in light of
Sessions v.Dimaya ", and that "ambiguity" created uncertainty
regarding whether the residual clause was unconstitutional in the
7th Circuit and therefore Counsel did not provide deficient
performance under Strickland?

2) Is a "general sentence", where defendant was not sentenced on
any individual counts, and where 3 of the 4 counts of conviction
have statutory maximums lower than the general sentence,
se illegal and must it be vacated and remanded by thisper
court sua
sponte ?

Could 'jurors of reason' disagree with the district court's conclusion that precedent is ambiguous when a derivative case is remanded for reconsideration, and that ambiguity created uncertainty regarding deficient counsel performance under Strickland?