#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick Deshon RICHARDS, Defendant-Appellant. Federal Public Defenders for the Districts of Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma (Northern & Eastern), and Utah, Amici Curiae. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick Deshon Richards, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6181, No. 16-6198

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed April 3, 2017

Steven W. Creager, Mark A. Yancey, Office of the United States Attorney, Western District of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Paul Antonio Lacy, Esq., Kyle Wacken-heim, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Western District of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant-Appellant

Melody Brannon, Paige Nichols, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of Kansas, Topeka, KS, for Amicus Curiae Federal Public Defenders

Virginia L. Grady, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Amicus Curiae Colorado and Wyoming Federal Public Defender

Melody Brannon, Paige Nichols, Kirk C. Redmond, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of Kansas, Topeka, KS, for Amicus Curiae Kansas Federal Public Defender

Stephen Patrick McCue, Esq.; Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, for Amicus Curiae New Mexico Federal Public Defender

Julia L. O’Connell, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Northern and Eastern Districts of Oklahoma, Tulsa, OK, for Ami-cus Curiae Oklahoma Federal Public Defender Northern & Eastern Districts

Kathryn Neal Nester, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, for Amicus Curiae Utah Federal Public Defender

Before HARTZ, O’BRIEN, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Harris L Hartz, Circuit Judge

We have consolidated for briefing and decision two appeals filed by Roderick Richards. The claim for relief in each case is predicated on the contention that his right to due process was violated when the sentencing court used the residual clause of USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2) (2015) in calculating his guideline sentencing range. His appeal in No. 16-6181 is from a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in which he argued that *727the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague and as a result he was improperly treated as a career offender under the guidelines. The district court denied the § 2255 motion on the ground that Mr. Richards’s plea agreement had waived his right to raise a collateral challenge to his sentence, but the court granted him a certificate of appealability (COA) authorizing his appeal, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (requiring COA to appeal denial of relief under § 2255). The appeal in No. 16-6198 is from the district court’s dismissal of his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in his sentence based on Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the offense levels of various drug offenses. The district court dismissed the motion on the ground that Mr. Richards was ineligible for reduction because of his career-offender status.

Mr. Richards argues on appeal that the waiver in his plea agreement does not preclude the constitutional challenge to his sentence and that if his sentence is properly corrected, he would be eligible for relief under Amendment 782. But we need not address whether Mr. Richards’s waiver precludes his § 2255 motion, because the motion lacks merit anyway. In *Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), the Supreme Court rejected a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause to the residual clause of § 4B1.2(a)(2). *See United States v. Snyder,*No. 16-8108, 852 F.3d 972, 2017 WL 1149077 (10th Cir. Mar. 28, 2017). And because Mr. Richards was properly sentenced as a career offender, the appeal of the dismissal of his motion under § 3582(c)(2) must also be denied.

We AFFIRM the judgments of the district court in both appeals.

*

 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.