Whether a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) when it claims that Johnson v. United States invalidates the residual clause of the career offender provisions of the mandatory United States Sentencing Guidelines

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed within one year of, Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and claiming that Johnson invalidates the residual clause of the career offender provisions of the mandatory United States Sentencing Guidelines is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) because it asserts a right initially recognized in Johnson? 2. Whether, in light of Johnson, the residual clause of the mandatory United States Sentencing Guidelines is unconstitutionally vague? 3. Whether the Fourth Circuit incorrectly denied a certificate of appealability on Petitioner’s claim when he argued that the residual clause of the mandatory career offender guideline was void for vagueness after Johnson. i