long held that an appellant abandons a claim when he either makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and authority.”). AFFIRMED. 1 . The defendant has spelled his last name as "Hayward” and “Heyward.” The magistrate judge found that the former spelling is correct, amended the case caption, and ordered all subsequent filings to conform with that spelling. We use that spelling throughout this opinion. 2 . Hayward also does not point to any evidence that the sentencing court in fact relied on the residual clause when it concluded his prior convictions are violent felonies. Without that evidence, he cannot show that his sentence was unconstitutional under Johnson. See Beeman v. United States, 817 F.3d 1215, 1223 (11th Cir. 2017)
holding that the vagueness doctrine does not apply to advisory sentencing guidelines notwithstanding the governments position that the residual clause of  4b12a was unconstitutionally vague following johnson holding a defendant could not receive an enhanced sentenced under the residual clause of  4b12a2 following johnson holding that johnson did not support the defendants collateral challenge under 28 usc  2255 to his sentence enhanced under the residual clause of the ussg holding that to prove a johnson claim the movant must show thatmore likely than notit was use of the residual clause that led to the sentencing courts enhancement of his sentence holding that a sentencing court may warn a defendant of the possibility of a sentence enhancement