Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alexander William FETTERS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-31
Citations: 691 F. App'x 875
Docket Number: No. 15-35165
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alexander William FETTERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 875–876

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.