Court Opinion

ID: 4245127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-02-14 21:00:37.222838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:16:33.651613
License: Public Domain

Case: 16-17211   Date Filed: 02/14/2018   Page: 1 of 2

                                                        [DO NOT PUBLISH]

            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                     FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                       ________________________

                             No. 16-17211
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                       ________________________

        D.C. Docket Nos. 0:15-cv-61860-WJZ; 0:13-cr-60167-WJZ-2

BURNETT GODBEE,

                                                          Petitioner-Appellant,

                                  versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                        Respondent-Appellee.

                       ________________________

                Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Florida
                      ________________________

                            (February 14, 2018)
Before WILSON, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
              Case: 16-17211    Date Filed: 02/14/2018   Page: 2 of 2

      Burnett Godbee appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion to vacate his sentence for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery,

18 U.S.C. § 1951, attempted Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, discharge of a

firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), and

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Godbee

contends Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), invalidated 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(3)(B), and his convictions for Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy to

commit Hobbs Act robbery do not otherwise qualify as crimes of violence under

§ 924(c)(3)(A).

      When we granted Godbee a certificate of appealability on whether

Johnson’s void-for-vagueness ruling extends to § 924(c)(3)(B), we had not yet

addressed the issue. We have, however, since concluded that Johnson’s void-for-

vagueness ruling does not extend to § 924(c)(3)(B). See Ovalles v. United States,

861 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2017). Godbee’s claim is foreclosed by Ovalles.

Therefore, the denial of his § 2255 motion is

AFFIRMED.

                                         2