Whether the new rule announced in Johnson v. United States applies to the identical residual clause in the mandatory guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 (2001)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In 2002, when the guidelines were mandatory, Timothy Douglas was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on prior Tennessee convictions for possession of cocaine for resale and escape. At the time, his escape conviction qualified as a crime of violence only under the residual clause in § 4B1.2(a)(2). In 2015, this Court struck down as void for vagueness the identical residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act’s definition of “violent felony” at 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)Gi). Johnson v. United States, 135 8. Ct. 2551 (2015). Within a year, Mr. Douglas filed a § 2255 motion challenging his career offender designation in light of the new rule announced in Johnson. But the district court dismissed the motion as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(8) and the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Raybon v. United States, 867 F.3d 625 (6th Cir. 2017), in which it held that the new rule announced in Johnson does not apply to the mandatory guidelines unless and until this Court says so. 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 identical residual clause in the mandatory guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 (2001)? II. Whether the residual clause in the mandatory guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 (2001), is void for vagueness? i