WL 5895199, at *7 (S.D.W.Va. Oct. 8, 2015) (“This Court holds that enhancing a convicted individual’s sentence under the residual clause of the career offender enhancement, § 4B1.2(a)(2), denies due process of law because the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague.”); and Petrillo v. United States, 147 F.Supp.3d 9, 21, No. 3:08-CV-1204 (JBA), 2015 WL 7574744, at *7 (D.Conn. Nov. 25, 2015) (“Because the Government acknowledges that the Guidelines may be unconstitutionally vague and because the Supreme Court recently held that language identical to § 4B1.2 is unconstitutionally vague, by the Government’s own admission, if [the defendant] were sentenced today, he would not be sentenced as a career offender.”); but see United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185, 1195 (11th Cir.2015) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Lucas has served in excess of 111 months
holding guidelines to be only advisory holding residual clause of acca void for vagueness holding a defendant could not receive an enhanced sentenced under the residual clause of  4b12a2 following johnson 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 an identical residual clause in the us sentencing guidelines unconstitutionally vague