Case Name: Maurice DANIELS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-27
Citations: 699 F. App'x 915
Docket Number: No. 16-16338 Non-Argument Calendar
Parties: Maurice DANIELS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 915–916

Head Matter:
Maurice DANIELS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-16338 Non-Argument Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
(October 27, 2017)
Richard Carroll Klugh, Jr., Law Offices of Richard C. Klugh, Miami, FL, for Petitioner-Appellant
Sivashree Sundaram, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Lisa A. Hirsch, Anthony W. Lacos-ta, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Respondent-Appel-lee
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Daniels appeals the denial of his motion to vacate. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We issued a certificate of appealability to address whether Daniels is entitled to relief from his firearm convictions on the ground that Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), invalidated the "risk of force" clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B). We affirm the denial of Daniels's motion.
Daniels's argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in Ovalles v. United States, 861 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2017). In Ovalles, we held "that Johnson's void-for-vagueness ruling does not apply to or invalidate the 'risk-of-force' clause in § 924(c)(3)(B)." Id. at 1265. Because section 924(c)(3)(B) is not unconstitutionally vague, Daniels is not entitled to relief from his convictions.
We AFFIRM the denial of Daniels's motion to vacate.