[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 16

- 16487 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No s . 1:16

- cv - 21978

- KMM , 1:11

- cr - 20678

- KMM

- 2
MONTAVIS MIDDLETON, Petitioner

- Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

- Appe llee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (July 12, 2017) Before MARCUS , MARTIN, and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Montavis Middleton, a federal prisoner, appeals t he district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his total 321

- month imprisonment sentence ,

Case: 16-16487 Date Filed: 07/12/2017 Page: 1 of 42 which was imposed after a guilty plea to 10 counts: 1 count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); 7 cou nts of Hobbs Act robbery , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); and 2 counts of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence in connection with the Hobbs Act robberies, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) . He argues on appeal that he is innoce nt of his two convictions under § 924(c) because the predicate conviction for both counts, Hobbs Act robbery, is no longer a crime of violence after the holding
in Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). He also argues that he is no longer a car eer offender under the Sentencing Guidelines because Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a), and he does not have two prior convictions for crimes of violence under § 4B1.2(a).
I. Obtaining a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is a jurisdictional prerequisite to appellate review. Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 335

- 36 (2003). To obtain a COA, a movant must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Spencer v. Unite d States , 773 F.3d 1132, 1138 (11th Cir. 2014) ( en banc ). On exceptional occasions, we may expand a COA sua sponte to include issues that reasonable jurists would find debatable. See Mays v. United States , 817 F.3d 728, 733 (11th Cir. 2016).

Case: 16-16487 Date Filed: 07/12/2017 Page: 2 of 43 The COA in this case authorized an appeal only with regard to the sole issue the district court addressed and concluded could be deb atable among reasonable jurists: whether the residual clause in the Sentencing Guidelines is void for
vagueness. See Miller

- El , 537 U.S. at 335

- 36. Middleton did not apply to expand the COA, and we decline to sua sponte expand the COA, because this is not an exceptional case where expansion is warranted. See Mays , 817 F.3d at 733; Spencer , 773 F.3d at 1138. Therefore, Middleton’s a rgument that he is innocent of his two convictions under § 924(c) is outside the scope of the COA, and we will
not address the merits of it.
II. When reviewing the district court’s denial of a motion to vacate, we review legal issues de novo and findings o f fact for clear error. Lynn v. United States , 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004). In Beckles v. United States , the Supreme Court held that the advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause, such that th e residual clause in the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a), is not void for vagueness. 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017). Reviewing Middleton’s argument de novo , Beckles forecloses it. See Lynn , 365 F.3d at 1232. The Sentencing Guidelines are n ot subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause and were not affected by the holding in

Case: 16-16487 Date Filed: 07/12/2017 Page: 3 of 44 Johnson

. See Beckles , 137 S. Ct. at 897. Therefore, Middleton’s convictions are still crimes of violence under the career offender guideline, and the district court properly denied his § 2255 motion as to this issue. AFFIRMED. Case: 16-16487 Date Filed: 07/12/2017 Page: 4 of 4