1. Whether the Court should resolve the three-way circuit split regarding whether, and under what circumstances, a movant's procedural default may be excused because his constitutional vagueness challenge was "not reasonably available" prior to Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015).

3. Whether a general verdict that was obtained in reliance on the unconstitutionally vague residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) may be sustained based on the reviewing court's finding that the jury also relied on a valid basis to convict.

Whether a movant's procedural default may be excused due to a constitutional vagueness challenge not reasonably available prior to Johnson v. United States