Did the district court have jurisdiction to consider Mr. Lindsey's authorized motion?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED As required by 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2), Mr. Lindsey secured prefiling authorization from the Fifth Circuit before filing a successive motion to vacate his ACCA-enhanced sentence under Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015). Yet the district court and the Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the authorized motion. 1. Did the district court have jurisdiction to consider Mr. Lindsey’s authorized motion? ; 2. Considering two materially identical “burglary” statutes, the Fifth Circuit and the Seventh Circuit drew divergent conclusions about the theory constituted generic burglary. Could reasonable jurists debate the merits of Mr. Lindsey’s § 2255(h)(2) motion? 1