Whether the new rule announced in Johnson applies to the analogous residual clause in the mandatory guidelines

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In 1989, when the guidelines were mandatory, Abelee Bronson was sentenced as a career offender under USSG § 4B1.1 in light of two prior Missouri second-degree burglary convictions. At the time, § 4B1.1 defined the term “crime of violence” via 18 U.S.C. § 16. And Mr. Brunson’s burglary convictions qualified as crimes of violence (only) under § 16(b)’s residual clause. In 2015, this Court struck down as void for vagueness an analogous residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)Gi). Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). And in 2018, this Court struck down as void for vagueness § 16(b)’s residual clause. Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 8.Ct. 1204 (2018). Within one year of the decision in Johnson, Mr. Bronson obtained authorization from the Tenth Circuit to file a successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2). But the district court dismissed the motion as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). The Tenth Circuit affirmed. In conflict with a published decision from the Seventh Circuit, the Tenth Circuit held that the new rule announced in Johnson does not apply to the mandatory guidelines. The questions presented are: I. Whether, for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3), the new rule announced in Johnson applies to the analogous residual clause in the mandatory guidelines, USSG § 4B1.2(1) (1988)? IJ. Whether the residual clause of the mandatory guidelines, USSG § 4B1.2(1) (1988), is void for vagueness? i