Whether a § 2255 petitioner seeking relief under Johnson must affirmatively prove that he was sentenced under the residual clause of the ACCA

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW | Both the district court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Wyatt | a certificate of appealability (‘COA”), from the denial of his petition under 28 U.S.C. | § 2255. In his § 2255 petition, Wyatt challenged his Armed Career Criminal Act | (“ACCA”) sentence because the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) is ; | unconstitutionally vague, in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 | (2015). In the absence of the residual clause, Wyatt does not have three prior | convictions that qualify as violent felonies under either the enumerated or elements | clauses of the ACCA. This petition for writ of certiorari presents the question of | whether reasonable jurists can debate the following issues: | (D Whether a § 2255 petitioner seeking relief under Johnson must | affirmatively prove that he was sentenced under the residual clause of the ACCA. | (2) Whether the court could presume that the sentencing court relied on : the elements clause of the ACCA to determine that Wyatt was subject to the Act, when doing so requires the court to presume that the sentencing court acted | illegally. |