Whether the 10th Circuit's declaration that the 924(c) 'residual' clause is unconstitutional requires resentencing when the sentencing court failed to specify which prong it relied on

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. The 10th Circuit has already declared that the 924(c) “residual” . clause is unconstitutional in light of this Courts Johnson v US and Sessions v Dimaya rulings. However, at the time of Sentencing of Wade, the Court failed to "specify which prong it relied on" |, ; to apply the 924(c). Therefore, does the Court get a "2nd Bite at the Apple", especially when the petitioner was sentenced : : "after Johnson had already came out"? ; 2. The Courts are "split" on "when and how" to apply the "physically — : restrained enhancement". Therefore, this Court should resolve , this "split" that is deprivina some individuals who are similiar in conduct but get sentenced in different circuits.(See U-.S.S.G 2B3.1(b)(4)(b) ) ; (i)