Whether Johnson v. United States applies retroactively to a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW This petition presents the following questions: I. Whether Johnson v. United States, 185 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), applies retroactively to a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion attacking a sentence imposed under mandatory Sentencing Guidelines so that such a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion filed within a year of the Johnson decision is timely? I. Whether the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, the Career Offender Provision, is unconstitutionally vague pursuant to Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and thus, whether appellant, Mr. Torrence Allen, is actually innocent of being a career offender, and thus, whether his sentence imposed pursuant to § 4B1.2 under the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines must be vacated? III. Whether the Eleventh Circuit’s rule that reasonable jurists could not debate an issue foreclosed by binding circuit precedent, even where a judge on the panel issuing the binding precedent subsequently states the panel's decision may be erroneous, misapplies the standard articulated by this Court in Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003), and more recently in Buck v. Davis, 137 8. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017), for determining whether a movant has made the threshold showing necessary to obtain a certificate of appealability (COA)? i INTERESTED PARTIES There are no