Case ID: f-appx_699/html/0915-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maurice DANIELS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-16338 Non-Argument Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    (October 27, 2017)
    Richard Carroll Klugh, Jr., Law Offices of Richard C. Klugh, Miami, FL, for Petitioner-Appellant
    Sivashree Sundaram, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Lisa A. Hirsch, Anthony W. Lacos-ta, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Respondent-Appel-lee
    Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Maurice Daniels appeals the denial of his motion to vacate. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We issued a certificate of appealability to address whether Daniels is entitled to relief from his firearm convictions on the ground that Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), invalidated the “risk of force” clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B). We affirm the denial of Daniels’s motion.

Daniels’s argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in Ovalles v. United States, 861 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2017). In Ovalles, we held “that Johnson’s void-for-vagueness ruling does not apply to or invalidate the ‘risk-of-force’ clause in § 924(c)(3)(B).” Id. at 1265. Because section 924(c)(3)(B) is not unconstitutionally vague, Daniels is not entitled to relief from his convictions.

We AFFIRM the denial of Daniels’s motion to vacate.