Whether the government's arguments are incorrectly that the Supreme Court's ruling in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), is 'procedural-as-applied' to guideline sentences and therefore, does not apply retroactively to Mr. Bolton's case on collateral review?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW , Bolton was sentenced under the Career-Offernder under the U.S.S.G § 4B1.1. In Johnson v. United Soates, 135 s. ct. 2551 (2015), this court held that the residual clause in the , Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924 (e)(2) (B)(ii), is unconstitutionally in Welch v. United States, 136 s. ct. 1257 (2016), the court held that Johnson announced a new "substantive" rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively in an initial collateral challenge under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to a sentence enhanced under the ACCA, 136 s. ct. 1268. Within one year.of Johnson, Bolton filed a timely 2255 to . challenge his career offender status under the residual clause. The district court found review of Bolton's Johnson claim to . be barred from vagueness challenges stating Bolton cannot use Johnson to challenge § 4B1.2's residual clause,. applying recent decision in Beckles v. United States, 137 s. ct. 886, =. ; 894 (2017). 1. Whether the governments arguments are incorrectly that the Supreme Court's ruling in Johnson v. United States, 135 s. ct. 2551 (2015), is to guideline sentences and therefore, does not apply retroactively to Mr. Bolton's case on collateral review? 2. Since the residual clause is invalid under Johnson _ “can the residual clause any longer mandate or authorize any sentence? When this court made it clear in. Welch, 136, s. ct. at 1256 that it can no longer do so? : 3. Did the trial court commit legal error when it determined that the Defendant qualified as a career ottender : based on a conviction in State Gourt for Aggravated Assault, where the State Statute § 39-13-102(c) does not categorically meet the "use of force" clause requirements and thus is not : a predicate "crime of violence" that allows for enhancement to career offender status under the residual clause? 4. Whether the Court Of Appeals committed legal error when it determined district court did not misapprehend or overlook any point law reviewing Petitioner's Argument . stating in light of United States v. Mathis, No. 15-0609 (Decided June 23, 2016) that conviction of Tennessee drug . statue § 39-17-417 is broader than the Federal Definition of (2) a controlled substance is a violation of the Due Process Clause? | : 5. Whether Petitioner's right to the effective ..¢ : assistance of counsel was violated on direct appeal when counsel failed to consult with Petitioner concerning his right to direct appeal: failed to make a reasonable effort to discover the Petitioner's desire to appeal and counsel failed to file a notice of ‘appeal or file brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 875 s. ct. as required by Doe v. Flores S. 28 U.S. 470, 120 S. ct. 1029 145 L. Ed. 2d. 985 (2000)? / . (3)