Whether courts should look to the factual record, the law at the time of sentencing, the law as it currently stands, or a combination of these factors to decide whether a petitioner's claim relies on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) such that the petitioner is eligible for relief

QUESTION PRESENTED To establish both procedural and substantive eligibility for habeas relief under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), a petitioner must show that a claim relies on the legal holding of Johnson—i.e., that the petitioner’s sentence implicated the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act. But the courts of appeals are mired in a six-way split on the issue of how one must show that a claim relied on the residual clause. Thus, the question presented is whether courts should look to (1) the factual record, (2) the law at the time of sentencing, (3) the law as it currently stands, or (4) a combination of these factors to decide whether a petitioner's claim relies on Johnson such that she or he is eligible for relief? prefix