Whether the residual clause in the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines is unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause, resulting in unequal relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for those serving pre-Booker career offender sentences

Question Presented for Review This Court holds various residual clauses are unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause, but has not yet addressed the residual clause in the thenmandatory Sentencing Guidelines in effect before United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Circuits are split on this issue, resulting in unequal relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for those serving preBooker career offender sentences resting on U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2)’s residual clause. Had Mr. Williams been sentenced in the First, Seventh, or D.C. Circuits, his pre-Booker mandatory career offender sentence would have received review under § 2255. Because his prior state conviction does not qualify as a crime of violence under either the enumerated or force clauses of the then-mandatory guideline, his sentence is unconstitutional. Resolution by this Court is necessary to ensure equal application of review under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for unconstitutional sentences. ii