Opinion ID: 806002
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Vagueness Challenge to the Residual Clause

Text: Finally, Harrington argues that the ACCA’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. The claim is foreclosed from appellate review by the district court’s denial of 22 Harrington’s motion to amend the certificate of appealability to add such a claim. See Armienti v. United States, 234 F.3d 820, 824 (2d Cir. 2000) (declining to address argument not included in certificate of appealability). In any event, we generally will not afford appellate review to a claim that was not raised in the district court, see Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976) (reciting “general rule . . . that a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below”), and we identify no reason to depart from this rule with respect to Harrington’s unpreserved vagueness challenge.9