Case: 16-17211 Date Filed: 02/14/2018 Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-17211

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 0:15-cv-61860-WJZ; 0:13-cr-60167-WJZ-2 BURNETT GODBEE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(February 14, 2018) Before WILSON, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-17211 Date Filed: 02/14/2018 Page: 2 of 2

Burnett Godbee appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, attempted Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, discharge of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Godbee contends Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), invalidated 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), and his convictions for Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery do not otherwise qualify as crimes of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A).

When we granted Godbee a certificate of appealability on whether Johnson’s void-for-vagueness ruling extends to § 924(c)(3)(B), we had not yet addressed the issue. We have, however, since concluded that Johnson’s void-for- vagueness ruling does not extend to § 924(c)(3)(B). See Ovalles v. United States, 861 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2017). Godbee’s claim is foreclosed by Ovalles. Therefore, the denial of his § 2255 motion is AFFIRMED.

2