*876 MEMORANDUM **

Alexander William Fetters appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a section 2255 motion, see United States v. Manzo, 675 F.3d 1204, 1209 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

Fetters contends that his sentence as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 is unconstitutional because Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), invalidated U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2)’s residual clause, and therefore his prior criminal endangerment convictions no longer qualify as predicate crimes of violence. Fetters’s argument is foreclosed. See Beckles v. United States, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 895, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017) (holding that “the advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause and that § 4B1.2(a)’s residual clause is not void for vagueness”).

AFFIRMED.