I. Whether Johnson v. United States, 135 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?

II. Whether the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.2, the Career Offender Provision, is unconstitutio nally 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§ 4Bl.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 Buch v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-7 4 (2017), for determining whether a movant has made the threshold showing necessary to obtain a certificate of appealability (COA)?

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