Are federal courts precluded from granting a federal prisoner's successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate an illegal sentence based on Johnson where the record is unclear about whether the movant's sentence was enhanced under the now-invalidated residual clause?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. __, 185 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), this Court declared unconstitutionally vague the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), but it left undisturbed the two remaining “violent felony” definitions in the ACCA. In Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. __, 186 8. Ct. 1257 (2016), this Court held that Johnson’s invalidation of the ACCA’s residual clause was a new, substantive rule of constitutional law that had retroactive effect in cases on collateral review. The question presented is: Are federal courts precluded from granting a federal prisoner’s successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate an illegal sentence based on Johnson where the record is unclear about whether the movant’s sentence was enhanced under the now-invalidated residual clause? i INTERESTED PARTIES There are no