'2255. CONCLUSION Defendant’s motion to vacate or correct sentence under § 2255 [25] is granted. The Court vacates and sets aside the Judgment [23]. The Government’s motion to stay [41] is denied. The Court will resentence Defendant, permit him to submit objections to his Presentence Report pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(l)(D), and allow both sides to argue for an appropriate and lawful sentence. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 . The Government concedes that after Johnson, the Guidelines’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague and that due process vagueness principles apply to the Guidelines. Gov't Resp. 3 n.l; ECF 28. Several courts have reached the same conclusion. E.g., United States v. Pawlak, 822 F.3d 902, 903-04, 907-10, 2016 WL 2802723, at **1, 5-7 (6th Cir.2016) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Welch, No. 12-4402-CR-L, 641
holding that the supreme court has final appellate review of agency decisions holding that the court of appeals erred in declining to apply supreme court precedent even though the reasoning of that precedent had been eroded by subsequent decisions recognizing that the courts own prior decisions shielding the guidelines from vagueness challenges were no longer consistent with supreme court precedent holding federal district courts do not have jurisdiction  over challenges to state court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state courts action was unconstitutional review of those decisions may be had only in this united states supreme court holding that the court of appeals lacks the authority to overrule decisions of the supreme court of north carolina and has a responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the supreme court