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 (2000)?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In 2003, when the guidelines were mandatory, Jorge Rodriguez-Luca was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4Bl1.1. His career offender designation depended on the fact that he had prior Arizona convictions for attempted and completed second degree burglary, which at the time qualified as crimes 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 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Within a year, Mr. Rodriguez-Luca 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)(3) as required by 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)(8), the new rule announced in Johnson applies to the identical residual clause in the mandatory guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 (2000)? II. Whether the residual clause in the mandatory guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 (2003), is void for vagueness? ii