Case ID: f-appx_711/html/0588-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Burnett GODBEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-17211 Non-Argument Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    (February 14, 2018)
    Orlando do Campo, do Campo & Thornton, PA, Miami, FL, for Petitioner-Appellant
    Burnett Godbee, Pro Se
    Sivashree Sundaram, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Emily M. Smachetti, Karen Obviar-Marie Stewart, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before WILSON, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

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)(l)(A)(ii), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Godbee contends Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (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.