#### Montavis MIDDLETON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-16487 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(July 12, 2017)

Julie Erin Holt, Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Miami, FL, for Petitioner-Appellant

Daniel Matzkin, Sivashree Sundaram, Brian Dobbins, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Respondent-Appellee

Before MARCUS, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Montavis Middleton, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his total 321-month imprisonment sentence, 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 counts 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 innocent 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,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). He also argues that he is no longer a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines because Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2(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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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. United 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).

The COA in this case authorized an appeal only with regard to the sole issue *847the district court addressed and concluded could be debatable among reasonable jurists: whether the residual clause in the Sentencing Guidelines is void for vagueness. *See*Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 335-36, 123 S.Ct. 1029. 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 argument 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 of fact for clear error. *Lynn v. United States,*365 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004). In *Beetles 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 the residual clause in the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a), is not void for vagueness. — U.S.-, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017).

Reviewing Middleton’s argument *de novo, Bedeles*forecloses it. *See Lynn,*365 F.3d at 1232. The Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause and were not affected by the holding in *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.