Are 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions raising due-process-vagueness challenges to fixed sentences imposed through application of the pre-2005 mandatory career-offender-sentencing-guideline's residual-clause timely when filed within one year of Johnson-v-United-States

Questions Presented for Review IL Are 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions raising due process vagueness challenges to fixed sentences imposed through application of the pre-2005 mandatory career offender Sentencing Guideline’s residual clause timely when filed within one year of Johnson v. United States, 135 8. Ct. 2551 (2015)? Il. Do Tennessee’s 1982 armed robbery or aggravated assault statutes fail to constitute crimes of violence under the force clause of the pre-2005 mandatory career offender Sentencing Guideline? III. Does the federal armed bank robbery statute fail to constitute a crime of violence under the force clause of the pre-2005 mandatory career offender Sentencing Guideline? IV. Does the commentary at U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 cmt. n.2 (1995), fail to provide an independent basis for a crime of violence finding, should this Court hold the residual clause of the pre-2005 mandatory career offender Sentencing Guideline enhancement void? ii Proceedings and Orders Below 1. United States v. Gray, No. 2:95-cr-00324-JAD, 2018 WL 3058868 (D. Nev. June 20, 2018), denying Gray’s motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, attached as