Case ID: f-appx_691/html/0875-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alexander William FETTERS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-35165
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed May 31, 2017
    Timothy John Racicot, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USMI — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    David F. Ness, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT — Federal Defenders of Montana (Great Falls), Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
    
   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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.