Whether the mandatory life sentence for a reverse sting Hobbs Act robbery case with no actual drugs should be overturned based on conflicts with Supreme Court rulings on Almendarez-Torres, Apprendi, Alleyne, Johnson-II, and Dimaya

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether in its supervisory jurisdiction over the Courts of the United States, and based upon this Court’s clear precedent and the facts of record, this Court should grant this petition, where Petitioner in his early 40’s was sentenced to mandatory life in prison for a reverse sting Hobbs Act robbery case that had no actual drugs, and there are multiple conflicts with this Court’s rulings because: First, whether this is the perfect case to entertain the continuing validity vel non, of Almendarez Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 244 (1998), in light of the reasoning of Apprendi v, New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Alleyne United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013), Johnson IT v. United States, supra, and Sessions v. Dimaya, supra? Second, whether Rolon presented meritorious issues under Johnson II, and meritorious allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel in his original 2255 motion; further the district court summarily denied all of the meritorious claims raised, failing to address even one of them, all of which violates Rolon’s Constitutional guarantees of fairness and due process as mandated by Buck v. Davis? i Third, whether the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the summary denial of the 2255 motion on all issues raised, including a request for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P.60(b), in direct conflict in direct conflict with Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018), wherein this Court held that the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. 16(b) was unconstitutionally vague; turn, Johnson II (Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 1551 (2015), renders the residual clause of 924(c) void for vagueness, all in direct conflict with Buck v. Davis? Fifth whether conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery, attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery, and conspiracy to possess a firearm, qualify as crimes of violence, in light of Johnson II, Sessions v. Dimaya, and Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 2251 (2016)? ii