His legal argument here is distinct because it specifically relies on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Johnson to buttress his argument that the residual clause of § 4B1.2(a)(2) is unconstitutionally vague. While the government cites two 2016 decisions from this district court, which concluded that similar successive motions were barred by § 2241(b)(1), Bradley v. United States, 186 F. Supp. 3d 950, 957 (W.D. Wis. 2016) and Ross v. United States, 2016 WL 2642272, at *3 (W.D. Wis. May 6, 2016), neither is binding here. Indeed, to the extent these cases conclude that any prior attack to a career offender enhancement bars a subsequent collateral attack premised on a different legal argument, Price dictates otherwise.