Whether Mr. Edmonds was required to prove that it is 'more likely than not' that the sentencing judge 'actually relied on' the ACCA's unconstitutional residual clause when imposing the original sentence

QUESTION PRESENTED After this Court struck down the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual cause in 2015, the Fifth Circuit granted Mr. Edmonds permission to file a “second or successive” motion arguing that he was no longer eligible for an ACCA sentence without the residual clause. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2). The district court nonetheless concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to address the legality of the ACCA sentence, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Was Mr. Edmonds required to prove, in district court, that it is “more likely than not” that the sentencing judge “actually relied on” the ACCA’s unconstitutional residual clause when imposing the original sentence? Il DIRECTLY