Whether a second or successive motion to vacate a federal sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2) must rely solely on a new and retroactive rule of constitutional law to satisfy the statutory standard

QUESTION PRESENTED A second otf successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a federal sentence may be filed if it “contain[s] . . . a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” 28 USS.C. § 2255(h)(2). In order to meet this standard, is a movant asserting that his sentence is unconstitutional under Samuel Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), required to show that his motion relies so/y on that new and retroactive rule of constitutional law, as the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held? Or may he satisfy the standard by showing that the new and retroactive tule of constitutional law provides a potential basis for relief, as the Third, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have held? i DIRECTLY