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 under current law, he is not an armed career criminal

QUESTION PRESENTED In 1993, Mr. Prutting was convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon and sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) to 264 months’ imprisonment. After this Court decided Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (Samuel Johnson), invalidating the ACCA’s residual clause, Mr. Prutting moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. That motion was denied, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial because the 1993 sentencing record was silent on which provision of the ACCA’s “violent felony” definition the district court relied on to enhance Mr. Prutting’s sentence. The question presented here is 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 under current law, he is not an armed career criminal. i