Could 'jurors of reason' disagree with the district court's conclusion that precedent is ambiguous when a derivative case is remanded for reconsideration, and that ambiguity created uncertainty regarding deficient counsel performance under Strickland?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) Could so-called “jurors of reason" disagree with the district court's conclusion that precedent is made "ambiguous" when a derivative case is "remanded for reconsideration in light of Sessions v. Dimaya", and that "ambiguity" created uncertainty regarding whether the residual clause was unconstitutional in the7th Circuit and therefore Counsel did not provide deficient performance under Strickland? 2) Is a "general sentence", where defendant was not sentenced on any individual counts, .and where 3 of the 4 counts of conviction have statutory maximums lower than the general sentence, per se illegal and must it be vacated and remanded by this court sua sponte? : : RELATED CASES Krieg v. U.S., 24-1862 (7CA) Appeal of District Court's DENIAL of : Krieg's Rule 36 Motion to Correct Judgement. Krieg v. Hazlewood, 2023 U.S. Dist: LEXIS 118721 (D.N.H. 2023) Krieg's §2241 Petion under the Savings Clause DENIED. Outstanding motions in USDC IN/ND 2:17-CR-00146: Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to 18'U.S.C. §3582(c)(2)/ Amendment 821/ Zero-Point Offender Motion Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) -ii