Whether Mr. Callins filed his § 2255 motion within one year of the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW (1) In Johnson v. United States (Johnson IT), 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), this Court held unconstitutionally vague the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). In Welch v. United States, 136 8S. Ct. 1257 (2016), this Court held that Johnson IT announced a new substantive rule of constitutional law retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Terry Callins was sentenced as a career offender under the identically worded residual clause of the then-mandatory guidelines, U.S.S.C. § 4B1.2. The Sixth Circuit authorized his second or successive § 2255 motion within one year of Johnson II, asserting that its rule renders his sentence unconstitutional. Did Mr. Callins file his § 2255 motion within one year of “the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court,” which “has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review”? 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). ii