Dist.Ct. erred in denying defendant’s petition for collateral post-termination relief that challenged his 2003 sentence on drug conspiracy charges, where: (1) defendant was sentenced as career offender under section 4B1.1 based on his three prior residential burglary convictions; and (2) defendant claimed that he was sentenced under Guideline’s residual clause, which was unconstitutionally vague. Ct. of Appeals agreed with defendant that said clause was unconstitutionally vague. However, remand was required, since: (1) record did not conclusively show that defendant was sentenced under residual clause or under Guideline’s enumerated-offenses clause; and (2) without said determination, Ct. could not assess whether defendant was entitled to relief under Johnson, 135 S.Ct. 2551 and Cross, 892 F.2d 288. Defendant further argued that his prior residential burglary convictions did not fit definition of burglary offense contained in section 4B1.2(a)(2) for purposes of qualifying as crimes of violence, since residential burglary statute covered unlawful entry into vehicles.
