of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 is a crime of violence under the residual clause of § 924(c)(3)). Under these circumstances, the Court finds the cause prong satisfied. As for prejudice, if Mr. Johnson were to prevail on this motion, then, inter alia, the § 924(c) counts based on arson (Counts 10, 15, and 21) would be vacated—counts for which he received three life sentences without release. As Mr. Johnson points out, “[wjithout the convictions, [he] could have received a release date.” Reply at 4. Thus, prejudice is clear as well. Because there is both cause and prejudice, the Court now turns to the merits of Mr. Johnson’s motion. C. Johnson II’s Applicability The government acknowledges that, several months ago, this Court held in United States v. Baires-Reyes, No. 15-cr-00122 601 (3d Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>). The Court is not persuaded. The reasoning of
holding that in making a determination as to whether a statute is void for vagueness common sense should not be suspended and criminal acts cannot always be defined with absolute precision because of the limits of the english language holding in the context of a vagueness challenge it is simple to conclude how a person holds himself out as a member of the legal profession holding after bairesreyes was decided that  16b is void for vagueness in the context of the ina holding that it may be decided as a matter of law holding that constitutional questions will not be decided if case can be decided on other grounds