Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)'s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague under Johnson v. United States

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) criminalizes using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. A first conviction carries a five-year mandatory minimum penalty, while a second conviction carries an additional 25-year mandatory minimum. This petition presents the following questions: I. Whether Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), applies retroactively to a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion attacking a conviction and sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(8) 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 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3) is unconstitutionally vague pursuant to Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and thus, whether appellant, Mr. Erik Lindsey Smith, is actually innocent of his conviction and sentence imposed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)?! 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, 187 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017), for determining whether a movant has made the threshold showing necessary to obtain a certificate of appealability (COA)? 1The issue of whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3) is unconstitutionally vague after Samuel Johnson was decided by an en banc panel of the Eleventh Circuit in Ovalles v. United States, 905 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2018) (en banc). The petition for a writ of certiorari in that appeal is currently pending before this Court. See Ovalles v. United States, No. 18-8393 (U.S. March 12, 2019). 1 INTERESTED PARTIES There are no