1. Whether, to qualify under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 for relief from a sentence enhancement imposed by operation of the now abrogated residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), a criminal defendant must prove that the sentencing court relied "solely" on the residual clause to impose the enhancement or whether it is sufficient to establish that that the sentencing court "may have" relied on the residual clause.

2. Whether retroactive relief from a sentence enhancement based solely on the now-abrogated residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) is available under Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120, 134-135 (2016), to a criminal defendant who did not challenge the enhancement until after this Court abrogated the enhancement in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015).

Whether a criminal defendant must prove the sentencing court relied 'solely' on the abrogated residual clause to qualify for sentence enhancement relief under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, or if it is sufficient to show the court 'may have' relied on the residual clause