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

Questions Presented for Review In 1996, when the guidelines were mandatory, Martinez was sentenced as a career offender under USSG § 4B1.1 because he had an aggravated burglary conviction and a New Mexico robbery conviction. Then, § 4B1.1's definition of “crime of violence” matched the Armed Career Criminal Act’s (ACCA) ‘violent felony’ definition, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(Gi). Martinez’s prior convictions and the offense of conviction qualified as crimes of violence only under the residual clause. In 2015, this Court struck down as void for vagueness the ACCA’s residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). Within one year of the decision in Johnson, Martinez filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court dismissed that 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. Martinez presents the following questions to this Court: I. Whether, for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(8), the new rule announced in Johnson applies to the analogous residual clause in the mandatory guidelines, USSG § 4B1.2(1) (1995)? II. Whether the mandatory guidelines’ residual clause, USSG § 4B1.2(1) (1995), is void for vagueness? i