Whether the Eleventh Circuit misapplied this Court's precedents by denying a certificate of appealability on whether Mr. Tannehill's § 2255 claim relied on the Court's voiding of the residual clause in Johnson v. United States

QUESTION PRESENTED Denial of a certificate of appealability in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding is appropriate only where “reasonable jurists would consider [it] to be beyond all debate” that a movant has “failed to show any entitlement to relief... .” Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1264 (2016) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). In this case, a reasonable jurist could conclude that Mr. Tannehill was sentenced under the now-void residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) because, under the controlling law at the time of his sentencing, the residual clause was the only lawful basis for enhancing his sentence under the ACCA. The question presented is whether the Eleventh Circuit misapplied this Court’s precedents, and therefore should be summarily reversed, by denying a certificate of appealability on whether Mr. Tannehill’s § 2255 claim relied on the Court’s voiding of the residual clause in Johnson v. United States, 135 8. Ct. 2551 (2015).