ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Henry Evans, a federal prisoner, filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. He argued that he was sentenced as a career offender under the residual clause of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.2(a)(2), and that the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague because it uses essentially the same language as the language in the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(b), which was held to be unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2557, 2563, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). The district court summarily denied the § 2255 motion but granted a certificate of appealability (COA).

The Supreme Court has now held that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, including the residual clause of § 4B1.2, are not subject to constitutional vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause. Beckles v. United States, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145, 2017 WL 855781 (Mar. 6, 2017). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.