Where a § 2255 movant relies on evidence of the legal background at the time of his sentencing to prove he was sentenced under an unconstitutional law, does he bear a heightened burden of production to prove his claim?

QUESTION PRESENTED The proponent of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to relief. Most circuits have specifically held that the same standard applies to § 2255 claims that rely on this Court’s voiding of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) residual clause in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015). Courts throughout the country also agree that the legal landscape from the time of sentencing may carry a § 2255 movant’s preponderance burden even if the sentencing record is silent as to whether the sentence depended on the residual clause. The Eleventh Circuit, however, has added to the traditional burden of proof a heightened burden of production. It alone among the courts of appeals will not even weigh evidence of the legal landscape unless at the time of sentencing “clear precedent show[ed] that the court could only have used one clause or another,” Pet. App. 14a (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Pickett, 916 F.3d 960, 964 (11th Cir. 2019)). No other circuit imposes an equivalent burden of production. Mr. Williams presents this question: Where a § 2255 movant relies on evidence of the legal background at the time of his sentencing to prove he was sentenced under an unconstitutional law, does he bear a heightened burden of production to prove his claim?