Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the district court's decision that it could not consider on the merits Mr. Clay's successive motion based upon Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015)

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the district court’s decision that it could not consider on the merits Mr. Clay’s successive motion based upon Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), because Mr. Clay was unable to demonstrate on a silent record that it was more likely than not that he had been sentenced under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). (i)