Case ID: f-appx_682/html/0688-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Nancy L. Moritz, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry Anthony EVANS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-1171
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Filed March 27, 2017
    Paul Farley, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Josh Lee, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before LUCERO, HOLMES, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Nancy L. Moritz, Circuit Judge.

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. 
      
       After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel, It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.