Are federal courts precluded from granting a federal prisoner's successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate an illegal sentence in light of Johnson where the record is unclear about whether the movant's sentence was enhanced under the now-invalid residual clause?

QUESTION PRESENTED In Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. __, 185 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), this Court declared unconstitutionally vague the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), but left undisturbed the two remaining “violent felony” definitions in the ACCA. In Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. __, 186 S. Ct. 1257 (2016), this Court held that Johnson’s invalidation of the ACCA’s residual clause was a new, substantive rule of constitutional law that had retroactive effect in cases on collateral review brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In this case, the Eleventh Circuit expressly “recognize[d] that Perez’s sentence is unconstitutional” in light of Johnson, as it “now exceeds the maximum authorized punishment for his offense.” App. 13a. Nonetheless, the court affirmed the denial of his successive § 2255 motion to vacate that illegal sentence. It reasoned that Petitioner was required to prove that the sentencing court had relied on the residual clause, as opposed to another clause, when imposing the ACCA sentence. And he could not meet that burden of proof because the record was silent. The question presented is: Are federal courts precluded from granting a federal prisoner’s successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate an illegal sentence in light of Johnson where the record is unclear about whether the movant’s sentence was enhanced under the now-invalid residual clause?* “ The same question is also presented in King v. United States (U.S. No. 17-8280) (filed Mar. 27, 2018). i