Whether a § 2255 movant raising a Samuel Johnson claim can satisfy his burden of proof by showing his ACCA sentence may have been based on the residual clause and that under current law, he is not an armed career criminal

question presented by this case is whether the Eleventh Circuit erroneously denied Mr. McGee a COA on whether he was unconstitutionally sentenced above the statutory maximum for his offense. More specifically, however, the narrow questions presented by this petition are whether reasonable jurists can debate the following issues: qd) Whether a § 2255 movant raising a Samuel Johnson claim can satisfy his burden of proof by showing his ACCA sentence may have been based on the residual clause and that under current law, he is not an armed career criminal; (2) Whether a Florida conviction for robbery under Fla. Stat. § 812.13 qualifies as a “violent felony” under the ACCA’s elements clause;! and (3) Whether a Florida conviction for resisting with violence under Fla. Stat. § 843.01 qualifies as a “violent felony” under the ACCA’s elements clause. 1 This Court is currently considering the same question in Stokeling v. United States, No. 17-5554 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2018). i