Whether a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion filed within one year of Johnson can assert a timely, valid claim that the residual clause of the mandatory Guidelines is unconstitutionally vague

QUESTION PRESENTED In Johnson v. United States, 135 8. Ct. 2551 (2015), this Court held that imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) violated the Due Process Clause’s prohibition on vague laws. Before this Court struck down the mandatory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in 2005, thousands of Americans received mandatory increased sentences under the identically-worded residual clause in the Guidelines’ career-offender provision, whose text was imported from ACCA’s residual clause. As many as 1,000 individuals in that group remain in prison. The circuits are split over whether these individuals may raise challenges to the Guidelines provision under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The question presented is: Whether a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion filed within one year of Johnson can assert a timely, valid claim that the residual clause of the mandatory Guidelines is unconstitutionally vague. ii STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES Federal Criminal Proceedings e United States v. Hodges, No. CR98-0091-JET (W.D. Wash. Nov. 19, 1999) (district court proceeding); aff'd, United States v. Hodges, No. 99-30376 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2001) Federal Post-Conviction Proceedings e United States v. Hodges, No. 3:02-ev-5008-JET (W.D. Wash. Sept. 26, 2003) (federal district court denial of § 2255 motion), affd, United States v. Hodges, No. 03-35825 (9th Cir., Dec. 24, 2003) (denying certificate of appealability) e United States v. Hodges, No. 2:16-cv-01521-J LR (W.D. Wash. May 2, 2017) (district court order denying § 2255 motion but granting certificate of appealability), aff'd, United States v. Hodges, No. 17-35408 (9th Cir. July 26, 2019)