Whether a § 2255 movant raising a Johnson claim can satisfy his burden of proof by showing his ACCA sentence 'may have' been based on the residual clause, or whether movant must show that it was 'more likely than not' his sentence was based on the residual clause

QUESTION PRESENTED In Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (Johnson), this Court declared unconstitutional the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Thereafter, Mr. Garcia filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging the enhanced sentence he received under the ACCA. The lower courts denied relief because Mr. Garcia failed to show, more likely than not, that the use of the residual clause led to the sentence enhancement. The question presented here is whether a § 2255 movant raising a Johnson claim can satisfy his burden of proof by showing his ACCA sentence “may have” been based on the residual clause, as the Third, Fourth and Ninth Circuits hold, or whether movant must show that it was “more likely than not” his sentence was based on the residual clause, as the First, Sixth, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits hold. i