Whether the writ of coram nobis is the proper avenue for a federal inmate to challenge a portion of a consecutive sentencing scheme when the federal post-conviction remedy under 28 U.S.C. 2255 is unavailable, inadequate, and ineffective

Questions Presented for Review 1. Is Heflin, 358U.S. 415, 3 L. Ed. 2d. 407, 79 S. Ct. 451 (1959), still the controlling precedent? Herein, this court held that the text of 28 U.S.C. 2255 did not allow prisoners to utilize section -2255 to collaterally attack any portion of their "consecutive sentencing scheme," that the prisoner was not "currently under." ... . 2. Is the writ of Coram Nobis, codified at 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), the All Writs Act, the proper avenue for federal inmates seeking to challenge a portion of a consecutive sentencing scheme, in which, the federal postconviction remedy 28 U.S.C. 2255 is unavailable, inadequate, and ; ineffective to test the legalities of a defendants sentence or conviction due to custody concerns? ; 3. Does this court's decisions in Johnson, 135 U.S. 2551 (2015) and Dimaya, 584 U.S. __(2018), striking down similarly worded residual clauses of the Armed Career Criminal Criminal Act, 18 . .U.S.C. 924(e), and the United States Code definition statute for Crime of Violence, 18 U.S.C. 16(b) for violating Fifth Amendment due process protections also void 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(b) residual clause? ; 4. Does petitioner's predicate crimes of armed bank robbery, under 18 U.S. 2113(a), (d), and simple carjacking, under 18 U.S.C. 2119(1) satisfy 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A) elements clause, when o both predicates can be committed "by intimidation?" .