United States v. Lavonte Hallman

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lavonte Lamont Hallman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Hallman challenges his career offender designation based on Johnson v. United States, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), which declared the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act unconstitutionally vague. * Hallman’s argument *131 is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s recent decision that the Sentencing Guidelines, including the career offender residual clause, “are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause.” Beckles v. United States, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 892, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED Footnotes [*] Before this court, Hallman clarifies that he believes he is entitled to relief under our decisions in United States v. Gardner, 823 F.3d 793 (4th Cir. 2016), and United States v. Billups, 652 Fed.Appx. 157 (4th Cir. 2016). These cases do not apply to Hallman as they address *131 armed career criminal designations under the Armed Career Criminal Act, not career offender designations.