that renders a claim “novel” is present here: [that is,] Johnson [II] “explicitly overruled” previous Supreme Court precedent [ie., James and Sykes]. United States v. Jefferson, No. 14-cr-00105-EMC-1, 2016 WL 6496456, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2016). The Court acknowledges that, with respect to the instant case, James and Sykes were actually decided many years after Mr. Johnson was sentenced. However, as Mr. Johnson points out, “at the time of his sentencing in 1993, the Ninth Circuit had already rejected a vagueness challenge to the ACCA” and further had “analyzed whether a federal statute qualified as a ‘crime of violence’ under § 924(c)’s residual clause without any constitutional concerns.” Opp’n at 3 n.5. See, e.g., United States v. Sorenson, 914 F.2d 173, 175 (9th Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Mendez, 992 F.2d 1488,
holding that defendants voice for vagueness argument fails  because there is no indication that the sentence enhancement provision at issue is so vague that it grants undue discretion to law enforcement officials the factors for sentence enhancement under 18 usc  924e1 are quite specific holding that crimes subject to a minimum sentence of 15 years under 18 usc  924e1 are properly characterized as class a felonies under 18 usc  3559 holding previous convictions can only be used for sentence enhancement purposes under 18 usc  924e1 if the restoration of civil rights regarding such convictions expressly prohibited the possession of firearms holding that sentence enhancement for crimes committed against law enforcement officers may be applied when information charges qualifying offense information does not need to recite enhancement statute holding that a sentencing court may warn a defendant of the possibility of a sentence enhancement