Whether § 924(c)'s residual clause, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), is unconstitutionally vague after Johnson v. United States and Sessions v. Dimaya

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. Whether § 924(c)’s residual clause, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), is unconstitutionally vague after Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 8.Ct. 1204 (2018). Il. Whether substantive Hobbs robbery is a categorical crime of violence under the elements clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). III. Whether published orders issued by a circuit court under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(8), and in the context of applications to file second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions (SOS context), constitute binding precedent outside that context. IV. Whether the Eleventh Circuit’s rule that reasonable jurists could not debate an issue foreclosed by binding circuit precedent misapplies the standard articulated by this Court in Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003), and more recently in Buck v. Davis, 137 8. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017) for determining whether a movant has made the threshold showing necessary to obtain a certificate of appealability (COA). i INTERESTED PARTIES There are no