§ 2255 if the petition is based on “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2). The petitioner must make a prima facie showing that his petition falls within the scope of § 2255(h)(2). Johnson v. United States, 720 F.3d 720 (8th Cir.2013). A prima facie showing is “simply a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration by the district court.” Id. (quoting Bennett v. United States, 119 F.3d 468, 469 (7th Cir.1997)). Every circuit confronted with the issue of whether the Supreme Court’s prior holdings have made Johnson retroactive for purposes of § 2255(h)(2) has taken a different approach. See Price v. United States, 795 F.3d 731, 734 (7th Cir.2015) (<HOLDING>); In re Gieswein, 802 F.3d 1143, 1148-49 (10th
holding that directly applicable supreme court decisions require this court to overrule its prior holdings holding johnson announced a new substantive rule and prior supreme court holdings make it retroactive recognizing that several circuits  have recently announced alleyne does announce a new rule of constitutional law not made retroactive by the supreme court emphasis added holding the supreme court has not held in a case or a combination of cases that the rule in johnson is retroactive to cases on collateral review and therefore it has not made johnson retroactive holding that apprendi announced a rule of criminal procedure forecloses  argument that ring announced a substantive rule