Whether the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is unconstitutionally vague

Questions Presented 1. Whether this Court should grant, vacate, and remand this case, where Petitioner filed a § 2255 claiming that Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), rendered the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) unconstitutionally vague, where the Ninth Circuit denied that claim on timeliness grounds because this Court had not yet applied Johnson to that statute, and where this Court is set to address Johnson’s impact on Section 924(c) this term in United States v. Davis, 18431. 2. Whether a § 2255 motion filed within one year of Johnson, claiming that Johnson invalidates the residual clause of the pre-Booker career offender guideline, asserts a “right .. . initially recognized” in Johnson for timeliness purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). i