Case Name: James Bernard JONES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-05
Citations: 646 F. App'x 914
Docket Number: No. 14-11008
Parties: James Bernard JONES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MARCUS, JORDAN, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 646
Pages: 914–915

Head Matter:
James Bernard JONES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-11008
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 5, 2016.
James Bernard Jones, Jr., E still, SC, pro se.
R. Brian Tanner, Edward J. Tarver, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before MARCUS, JORDAN, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
PER CURIAM:
This case is here following a remand from the Supreme Court for consideration in light of Johnson v. United States, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). Following review of the record and the parties' supplemental briefs, we affirm the denial of Mr. Jones' motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Briefly stated, Mr. Jones cannot show prejudice from his counsel's failure to object to the BOLEO offense being counted as a qualifying conviction under the career offender provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(a) & 4B1.2. As we indicated in our prior opinion, the BOLEO offense constituted a "crime of violence" under the residual clause of the career offender provisions. Because we have recently held that the vagueness principle announced in Johnson does not apply to the career offender provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines, see United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir.2015), any constitutional objection by Mr. Jones' counsel to the use of the residual clause of the career offender guideline would have failed.
AFFIRMED.
We deny Mr. Jones' motion to expand the certificate of appealability to include a freestanding guideline error claim.