This consolidated appeal arises from the denials of three federal post-conviction relief petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Richard Dimott, Wayne N. Collamore, and Charles H. Casey, Jr., each pled guilty to a federal firearm offense and had a history of Maine state burglary convictions. On collateral review, all three allege that they no longer qualify for a sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) because the ACCA’s residual clause was invalidated by Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015) (“Johnson II").

Each petitioner filed his federal habeas petition outside of the one-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). All three nevertheless contend on appeal that their petitions are timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) because Johnson II, which is retroactively applicable, is the source of their claims. Specifically, Dimott, Collamore, and Casey argue that they were sentenced pursuant to the ACCA’s (now-void) residual" clause, so their sentences must be vacated, and they cannot be resentenced under the ACCA’s enumerated clause in light of Mathis v. United States, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016),^[1] a case that is not retroactively applicable.

The district courts in all three cases dismissed the petitions on procedural grounds. We affirm the dismissals. All three petitions are untimely because they raise Mathis, not Johnson II claims, and Mathis does not reset the one-year statute of limitations under § 2255(f)(3). The petitioners have no Johnson II claims because they have not shown that their original ACCA sentences were based solely on the residual clause.

I.

We first determine, as to each petitioner, whether the district court sentenced him pursuant to the enumerated or (the separate) residual clause of the ACCA. Accordingly, we give the relevant procedural history of each case.

A. Dimott

Richard Dimott pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm on March 30,2007, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 942(e). Based on his eight previous state convictions in Maine for burglary, see Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 401, the district court concluded that Dimott qualified for the sentencing enhancement under the ACCA, but did not specify under which clause—enumerated or residual—it was sentencing him. On September 6, 2007, the district judge sentenced Dimott to 150 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Dimott did not appeal his sentence.

About nine years after his conviction, Dimott filed a motion to correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on June 27, 2016. This was within one year of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson II. Dimott argued that his convictions for Maine burglary cannot be the basis for his ACCA sentence because the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Mathis made clear that - Maine burglary is nongeneric and thus did not fall under the enumerated clause, and Johnson II invalidated sentences that were based on the ACCA’s residual clause.

The district court denied Dimott’s habe-as petition for being untimely. The same judge who had sentenced Dimott earlier under the' ACCA, rejected the petition:

Johnson II is understood to be one such decision newly recognizing a right that is retroactively applicable.... However, Dimott was deemed eligible for an ACCA sentence based only on burglary convictions, which qualify under ACCA’s “enumerated clause.” ... Dimott’s reliance on Mathis is also misplaced. In contrast to Johnson II, Mathis has not been recognized as a case that announced a new substantive rule that is retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.

Dimott v. United States, Nos. 2:06-cr-26, 2:16-cv-347, 2016 WL 6068114, at *2-3 (D. Me. Oct. 14, 2016) (emphasis added). The district court issued Dimott a certificate of appealability, and he filed this appeal on October 21, 2016.

B. Collamore

, Wayne N. Collamore pled guilty on December 21, 2010, to one count of escape from the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a), and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Based on, inter alia, his five previous state convictions for Maine burglary, the district court found Collamore to be an armed career criminal, again without specifying under which clause of the ACCA. On March 23, 2011, the sentencing judge imposed five years of imprisonment for the escape count, and a concurrent 210 months of imprisonment— based on the ACCA enhancement—for the firearm count. Collamore did not appeal his sentence.

More than five years after his conviction and sentencing, Collamore filed a § 2255 motion on May 19, 2016, arguing that his ACCA predicates were invalid post-Mathis. The reviewing judge, who was also Col-lamore’s sentencing judge, denied Collar more’s habeas petition for being untimely. That judge specifically cited: the Dimott decision to explain the dismissal:

This Court has recently had occasion to consider whether Mathis triggered a new one-year period for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2553(f)(3). In Dimott, this Court concluded that it did not; This Court also concluded that Johnson II does not provide a basis to challenge the status of convictions that were deemed to fall within ACCA’s enumerated clause, as opposed to the now-invalidated residual clause.

Collamore v. United States, Nos. 2:16-cv-259, 2:10-cr-158, 2016 WL 6304668, at *2 (D. Me. Oct. 27, 2016) (internal citations omitted). The district court issued a certificate of appealability, and this appeal was docketed on October' 31, 2016.

C. Casey

Charles H. Casey, Jr.,- pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm on April 27, 2012. The district court found that Casey qualified for an ACCA sentencing enhancement based on, inter alia, his three prior convictions in Maine for burglary, without specifying which ACCA clause was involved, and sentenced • Casey to 180 months of imprisonment. Casey did not appeal his sentence.

Nearly four years after his conviction and sentencing, Casey filed a § 2255 motion on June 27, 2016, collaterally attacking his sentence. The same judge who had. sentenced Casey, heard the petition. Casey argued that his Maine burglary convictions did not constitute predicate offenses under the ACCA. The Government responded that Casey’s petition was barred because his Johnson II claim was procedurally defaulted. The district court agréed with the Government and found that Casey failed to demonstrate that his procedural default would unfairly prejudice him “[bjecause extant First Circuit caselaw holds that Casey’s prior Maine burglary convictions remain qualifying enumerated violent felonies even after Johnson’s invalidation of the residual clause.” .

Although the Government did not raise—and the district court did not address—either the timeliness issue or the merits of whether the Maine burglary statute was generic, the certifícate of appeala-bility, requested by Casey, touched indirectly on both:

Casey’s petition raises the following issues: (1) whether the retroactive application of Johnson allows any petitioner serving an ACCA sentence to have his qualifying “violent felony” convictions re-examined even if those convictions appear to fall under the ACCA’s enumerated clause; and (2) if so, whether Mathis has effectively overruled the First Circuit’s decision ... that a Maine burglary conviction ... qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA’s enumerated clause.

Casey timely filed this appeal.

II.

Dimott, Collamore, and Casey argue on appeal that the district courts erred in denying their petitions because they were sentenced pursuant to the ACCA’s (now-void) residual clause. We review de novo the district courts’ denials of their habeas petitions on procedural grounds. See Wood v. Spencer, 487 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing Rodriguez v. Spencer, 412 F.3d 29, 32 (1st Cir. 2005)). Because we find all three petitions time-barred, we do not reach the merits of the petitioners’ argument that their predicate offenses no longer qualify under the ACCA because Johnson II voids the residual clause and Mathis renders Maine burglary a nongen-eric offense that does not qualify under the enumerated clause.

Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) “in part to combat increasingly pervasive abuses of the federal courts’ ha-beas jurisdiction.” Delaney v. Matesanz, 264 F.3d 7, 10 (1st Cir. 2001) (citing Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664, 116 S.Ct. 2333, 135 L.Ed.2d 827 (1996)). The statute imposes a one-year statute of limitations on federal prisoners for filing habeas petitions, which runs from the latest of “(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction bec[ame] final; ... [or] (3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).

More than one year had passed between the time each petitioner’s conviction became final and the date on which each petitioner filed his § 2255 motion. As such, for their petitions to be timely, Dimott, Collamore, and Casey must demonstrate that (1) their claims arise from a right that “has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable,” and that (2) they filed within one year of the Supreme Court’s decision recognizing that right. Id. Each petitioner argues that Johnson II—which the Supreme Court held is retroactively applicable on collateral review, see Welch v. United States, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1257, 1268, 194 L.Ed.2d 387 (2016)—is the basis of his claim, and that his petition is timely. We disagree and find all three petitions untimely because they raise Mathis, not Johnson II, challenges, and, in any event, the petitioners have no Johnson II claims. We first address the petitions of Dimott and Collamore, before turning to Casey.

A. Dimott and Collamore

We find it plain that Dimott’s and Colla-more’s petitions do not raise Johnson II challenges because the record reflects that they were sentenced under the ACCA’s enumerated clause, not the residual clause. As such, we need not delve into the merits because their petitions, at most, raise untimely Mathis claims.

On collateral review, the district court judge in both cases (who had also served as the sentencing judge) found that Dimott and Collamore had earlier been sentenced pursuant to the ACCA’s enumerated clause. See Collamore, 2016 WL 6304668, at *2 (“Johnson II does not provide a basis to challenge the status of [Collamore’s] convictions that were deemed to fall within ACCA’s enumerated clause, as opposed to the now-invalidated residual clause.”); Dimott, 2016 WL 6068114, at *2 (“Dimott was deemed eligible for an ACCA sentence based only on burglary convictions, which qualify under ACCA’s ‘enumerated clause.’ ”).

Although these findings were made during the collateral review process, and not expressly stated at the time of sentencing, we give them due weight because the ha-beas judge was describing his own decisions at sentencing. Cf. United States v. DiCarlo, 575 F.2d 952, 954 (1st Cir. 1978) (holding that “if the [post-conviction relief! claim is based upon facts with which the trial court, through review of the record or observation at trial, is familiar, the court may make findings without an additional hearing”); see also United States v. Snyder, 871 F.3d 1122, 1128 (10th Cir. 2017) (giving due weight to the district court’s determination that “as a matter of historical fact, ... it did not apply the ACCA’s residual clause in sentencing [the defendant] under ACCA”); Feldman v. Perrill, 902 F.2d 1445, 1447 (9th Cir. 1990) (crediting the district court’s determination that “he had not relied on the 1976 conviction, only the underlying conduct,” when the petitioner “initiated an attack on his federal sentence, arguing that it had been improperly enhanced due to the sentencing judge’s reliance on an allegedly invalid state conviction”). Here, too, there is no gap in information about what happened. And the petitioners do not contend that the district court was incorrect in its characterization.

Because they were sentenced pursuant to the ACCA’s enumerated clause, Dimott and Collamore are, at most, asserting a claim about Mathis. In fact, the linchpin of both petitioners’ argument is that Mathis dictates that Maine burglary is a nongen-eric offense, so it cannot qualify as an ACCA predicate. The Supreme Court has indicated, though, that Mathis did not announce a new, retroactively applicable rule. See 136 S.Ct. at 2257 (noting that the case was a “straightforward” application of more than “25 years” of precedent). Thus, the precondition for the timeliness requirement under § 2255(f)(3) is not met. Cf. Stanley v. United States, 827 F.3d 562, 565 (7th Cir. 2016) (“Johnson does not have anything to do with the ... elements clause of ... the Armed Career Criminal Act, and § 2255(f)(3) therefore does not afford prisoners a new one-year period to seek collateral relief on a theory that the elements clause does not apply to a particular conviction.”).

To circumvent the statute of limitations, Dimott and Collamore try to pass off their Mathis claims under the guise of Johnson II claims, but their argument is foiled by a logical misstep. In order to even arguably invoke Johnson II, they must first succeed in arguing—on the merits—that their ACCA enhancement relies on the residual clause because Mathis renders Maine burglary a nongeneric offense. That is the essence of a Mathis challenge. To hold otherwise would create an end run around AEDPA’s statute of limitations. It would allow petitioners to clear the timeliness bar by bootstrapping their Mathis claims onto Johnson II claims, even where, as here, the merits of their case entirely depend on whether their previous convictions still qualify as ACCA predicates in light of Mathis. This cannot be right. The district court- correctly concluded that Dimott’s and Collamore’s petitions depended on Mathis-, and were thus untimely.

B. Casey

The remaining petitioner, Casey, presents a somewhat different case because (1) the Government failed to assert the timeliness defense before the district court, and (2) the record is silent as to which ACCA clause—enumerated or residual—the district court earlier relied on. Regardless, Casey’s petition is time-barred for the same reason as the other two petitions: it raises a Mathis, not a Johnson II, challenge.

1. Forfeiture

The Government failed to argue be-. fore the district court that Casey’s petition was untimely, relying instead on another procedural bar: that Casey had defaulted his- Johnson II claim. On appeal, Casey attempts to use the Government’s omission as a fehield against AEDPA’s strict statute of limitations and argues that the government may no longer raise the timeliness issue on appeal.

We disagree that the Government’s inadvertence is fatal to applying the timeliness bar here. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the power of federal courts to raise sua sponte the timeliness of habeas petitions. See Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463, 473, 132 S.Ct. 1826, 182 L.Ed.2d 733 (2012) (courts of appeals); Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 209, 126 S.Ct. 1675, 164 L.Ed.2d 376 (2006) (district courts).^[2]

The dissent asserts that appellate courts may excuse the Government’s waiver only if the Government proves that the case is “exceptional.” But that is a misreading of Wood.^[3] There, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the general principle that “court[s] may consider a. statute • of limitations or other threshold bar the State failed to raise in answering a habeas petition,” 566 U.S. at 466, 132 S.Ct. 1826 (citations omitted), and only cautioned against doing so if “the State, after expressing its clear and accurate understanding of the timeliness issue, deliberately steer[s] the District Court away from the question and towards the merits,” id. at 474, 132 S.Ct. 1826 (citations omitted). The Court narrowly held in Wood that it was an abuse of, discretion to raise timeliness .sua sponte in that case because “the State twice informed the U.S. District Court that it ‘would not challenge, but [is] not conceding, the timeliness of Wood’s habeas petition,’ ” id. at 465, 132 S.Ct. 1826, thereby evincing clear gamesmanship.

That is not the situation here. Assuming arguendo that similar concerns govern federal petitioner § 2255 cases as state petitioner § 2254 cases, the Government did not “strategically withh[o]ld the [limitations] defense or cho[o]se to relinquish it” in order to reach the merits of Casey’s petition. Id. at 472, 132 S.Ct. 1826 (alteration in original) (quoting Day, 547 U.S, at 210-11, 126 S.Ct. 1675). Rather, the Government argued procedural default (another. procedural bar) but made no mention of the defense of untimeliness at that point. The dissent makes much ado about, the fact that the same U.S. Attorney’s Office raised the timeliness bar in opposition to Dimott’s and Collamore’s petitions. But the Government’s inconsistency, if anything, demonstrates inadvertence, not stratagem—it simply had nothing to gain by only raising one procedural bar instead of two.

Moreover, unlike in Wood, the certificate of appealability arguably raised the timeliness issue, and the Government did brief it on appeal and argue that it did not waive the timeliness bar. In fact, the crux of the Government’s position is that petitioners cannot reset the one-year statute of limitations using § 2255(f)(3) because they fail to raise Johnson II claims. As such, we would not be rewarding the Government for any gamesmanship before the district court if we were to bypass its failure to raise the untimeliness defense at the outset before the district judge.

There is also no issue of procedural fairness. Casey, the losing party in district court on other grounds, had ample notice of the timeliness defense—beginning with the issues raised in the certificate of ap-pealability—and the opportunity to actually respond, both as to briefing and during oral argument before this court, which he has done. We would, by reaching the timeliness issue,, further “[t]he considerations of comity, finality, and the expeditious handling of habeas proceedings” that are at the very core of AEDPA. Day, 547 U.S. at 208, 126 S.Ct. 1675. Accordingly, the balance of relevant factors favors the ability of the Government to assert the timeliness defense now.^[4]

Indeed, contrary to the dissent’s assertion that this court “religiously” holds waiver against the Government, we—along with other courts' of appeals—have upheld the discretion of federal courts to deny habeas petitions on procedural grounds in analogous' contexts;^[5] See Oakes v. United States, 400 F.3d 92, 97 (1st Cir. 2005) (finding that the district court did not err in excusing the government’s' failure to raise the procedural default bar); see also Coulter v. Kelley, 871 F.3d 612, 618 (8th Cir. 2017) (finding that the district court did not err in considering timeliness sua sponte when the State “did not knowingly and intelligently waive its statute-of-limitations. defense,” and was, at most, negligent); In re Williams, 759 F.3d 66, 69 (D.C. Cir.- 2014) (finding that the court of appeals could raise,. sua sponte, the timeliness bar to deny petitioner’s motion for a successive petition for post-conviction relief).

Accordingly, we proceed ,⅛ consider the timeliness of Casey’s petition.

2. Burden of Proof and Production on Petitioner

Casey contends that his petition is timely. He urges us to adopt a rule that, when faced with a silent record, we must assume the district court sentenced the defendant pursuant to the residual clause. Casey does not, however, assert that he was in fact sentenced under the residual clause.

In urging this rule, Casey asks us to break with our time-honored precedent. This circuit has long held that federal post-conviction petitioners bear the burden of proof and production under § 2255, and must “establish[ ] by a preponderance of the evidence that they are entitled to relief.” DiCarlo, 575 F.2d at 954. Other circuits agree. See, e.g., Stanley, 827 F.3d at 566 (“As the proponent of collateral review, [the petitioner] had to produce evidence demonstrating entitlement to relief.” (citations omitted)); In re Moore, 830 F.3d 1268, 1272 (11th Cir. 2016) (aggregating cases across seven circuits that hold the same).

The Eleventh Circuit has applied this burden of proof specifically to situations where federal petitioners allege that they raise Johnson II claims. See Beeman v. United States, 871 F.3d 1215, 1221 (11th Cir. 2017) (“We conclude and hold, that, like any other § 2255 movant, a Johnson § 2255 claimant must prove his claim.”). In Beeman, the court announced a clear rule: “To prove a Johnson II claim, the movant must show that—more likely than not—it was the use of the residual clause that led to the sentencing court’s enhancement of his sentence.” Id. at 1221-22. A mere possibility is insufficient.^[6]

This approach makes sense. Petitioners should bear the burden of proof because they were certainly present at sentencing and knowledgeable about the conditions under which they were sentenced. Furthermore, any other rule would undercut an animating principle of AEDPA: the presumption of finality. And “[wjithout finality, the criminal law is deprived of much of its deterrent effect.” Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 309, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989).

Casey fails to point to any evidence suggesting that he was sentenced under the residual clause.^[7] Nevertheless, the dissent repeatedly insists that because the district judge found Casey’s Johnson II claim procedurally defaulted, he expressly found that “Casey raised a timely Johnson II claim.” This is plainly incorrect. That the district judge could have, but did not, raise timeliness sua sponte, 'and instead relied on another procedural bar, is not tantamount to finding that Casey was, in fact, sentenced pursuant to the residual clause. This is especially so when procedural default was the only procedural bar the Government raised. To say otherwise would be to hold that the dismissal of a habeas petition on one ground is an express finding that the petition is otherwise valid on every other ground.

The dissent also argues that because the district court’s order expressly stated that “Casey’s Johnson claim is a novel constitutional claim that applies retroactively,” United States v. Casey, Nos. 2:16-CV-346-DBH, 2:11-CR-216-DBH, 2016 WL 6581178, at *3 (D. Me. Nov. 3, 2016), it indicated “clear[ly] and unambiguously]” that he was sentenced pursuant to the residual clause. Again, not so. The dissent takes this language out of context. That the district court found Casey had cause for his procedural default—because Johnson II created a novel, retroactively applicable right—is not equivalent to finding, on the merits, that Casey raised a valid Johnson claim. Otherwise, any petitioner who clears the procedural default hurdle automatically succeeds on the merits. That cannot be right.

The Eleventh Circuit decision that Casey flags, In re Adams, 825 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2016), lends no support to the contrary. There, the court permitted the petitioner’s Johnson II claim despite a silent record because clear Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent at the time of sentencing held that a conviction under the Florida burglary statute was an ACCA predicate under the residual clause. See id. at 1285. This case presents the opposite fact pattern. Our decision in Duquette held that Maine burglary qualifies as a predicate offense under the ACCA’s enumerated clause. See 778 F.3d at 317. Although Duquette was decided in 2016, the opinion describes its holding as a “straightforward” application of the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). See 778 F.3d at 317. Other district courts at the time of Casey’s sentencing also treated Maine burglary as a generic offense. For instance, Dimott’s and Collamore’s sentences were found subject to the enumerated clause based on the petitioners’ Maine state burglary convictions just a few years before.

Casey directs our attention to three cases, United States v. Geozos, 870 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2017); United States v. Winston, 850 F.3d 677 (4th Cir. 2017); and United States v. Taylor, 873 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2017), that purportedly espouse his requested approach.

The Ninth Circuit in Geozos held that a state or federal petitioner has a valid Johnson II claim whenever the sentencing court “may have” relied on the residual clause. 870 F.3d at 896. The court said it did so based on an extension of the Strom-berg principle, which prescribes that a general verdict is void if it “may have rested” on an unconstitutional ground. Id. (quoting Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 53, 112 S.Ct. 466, 116 L.Ed.2d 371 (1991)). In the Ninth Circuit’s view, a post-conviction finding by a judge as to the basis for a petitioner’s enhanced sentence should not be treated “any differently than a finding made by a jury for the purpose of conviction.” Id.

Our view is different. We think the focus must be on the fact that we are applying clear limits established by Congress for when federal post-conviction petitions may be entertained by the federal courts, an issue not implicated at all by Stromberg. There are also many reasons why collateral review is unique. “Chief among them is the principle that ‘direct appeal is the primary avenue for review of a conviction or sentence.... When the process of direct review ... comes to an end, a presumption of finality and legality attaches to the conviction and sentence.’ ” In re Moore, 830 F.3d at 1272 (alterations in original) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 887, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983)). That presumption is irreparably undermined if the Government is forced to bear the burden of proving that each Johnson II claimant does not have a valid Johnson II claim. The burden should fall on the petitioner to establish by a preponderance of the evidence a necessary element of his Johnson II claim—that his ACCA sentence rested on the residual clause.

• The Fourth Circuit in Winston agreed with the Ninth Circuit as to state habeas claimants, but on different grounds. The Fourth Circuit reasoned that “imposing the burden on movants [to show they had been sentenced under the residual clause] ... would result in ‘selective application’ of the new rule of constitutional law announced in Johnson II, violating ‘the principle of treating similarly situated defendants the same.’ ” Winston, 850 F.3d at 682 (quoting In re Chance, 831 F.3d at 1341). We think that does not follow. Requiring habeas petitioners to establish—by a preponderance of the evidence—that they were' sentenced pursuant to the residual clause does not lead to treating similarly situated defendants differently. Precisely the opposite: it is imposing a uniform rule. That the burden is less friendly to petitioners than the one put forth in Winston does not make it unequal.

Moreover, Winston’s reliance on Teague to justify shifting the burden of proof onto the Government is misplaced. In Teague, the Supreme- Court held that “habeas corpus cannot be used as -a vehicle- to create new constitutional rules of criminal procedure unless those rules would-be applied retroactively to all defendants on collateral review.” 489 U.S. at 316; 109 S.Ct. 1060. Although the Court noted that “once a new rule is applied to the defendant in the case announcing the rule, evenhanded justice requires that it be applied retroactively to all who are similarly situated,” id. at 300, 109 S.Ct. 1060, it never said that evenhanded justice requires the Government to bear the burden of proving that the petitioner does not have a valid claim for relief. In fact, shifting the burden would implicate one of the Supreme Court’s chief concerns in Teague: that the “costs imposed -... by retroactive application of new rules of constitutional law on habeas corpus” would “far outweigh the-benefits of this application” if “it continually forces the [Government] to mardhal resources in order to keep in prison defendants whose trials and appeals conformed to then-existing constitutional standards.” 489 U.S. at 310; 109 S.Ct. 1060 (citations omitted).

Finally, the Fifth Circuit’s decision -in Taylor is clearly distinguishable. In that case, the court held that a federal prisoner had a valid Johnson II claim even though the record was silent, and the district court later declared that the “residual clause ‘did not play any role in Movant’s sentencing.’ ” Taylor, 873 F.3d at 481. Although the court described the approaches taken by the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, it did not decide “which, if any, of these standards • [it would] adopt.” Id. a,t 481-82. Instead, the court held that “[the petitioner’s] claim merit[ed] relief’ because “there was precedent suggesting that Taylor’s third predicate conviction could have applied only under the residual clause.” Id. at 482. No such precedent exists here. Rather, at the- time of .Casey’s sentencing, many district courts did not even , consider the residual clause as the basis for defendants’-.ACCA sentences when faced with predicate offenses under- state burglary statutes similar to Maine’s. See, e.g., United States v. Miller, 478 F.3d 48, 50-52 (1st Cir. 2007). (Connecticut burglary statute); United States v. Bennett, 469 F.3d 46, 49-50 (1st Cir. 2006) (Rhode Island burglary statute); United States v. Mastera, 435 F.3d 56, 60-62 (1st Cir. 2006) (Massachusetts burglary statute).

Our view is different from those taken in Geozos, Winston, and Taylor. Placing the burden of proof and production on habeas petitioners is in accord with our precedent and with the goals of AEDPA. See Turner v. United States, 699 F.3d 578, 587 (1st Cir. 2012) (noting that “AEDPA’s purpose is to further finality of convictions” (citing Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 178, 121 S.Ct. 2120, 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001))). We hold that to successfully advance a Johnson II claim on collateral review, a habeas petitioner bears the burden of establishing that it is more likely than not that he was .sentenced solely pursuant to ACCA’s residual clause. Casey has not met that burden. Instead, as noted, he has .never argued that he was actually sentenced under the residual clause. Accordingly, we- -find • Casey’s petition, which—like those of- Dimott and Colla-more—-relies solely on the non-retroactive decision in Mathis, untimely.^[8]

III.

For the. foregoing reasons, we affirm the district courts’ dismissals of Dimott’s, Col-lamore’s, and Casey’s § 2255 petitions.