Court Opinion

ID: 8684115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-25 07:00:36.97088+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:33.389070
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM: 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)(l)(A)(ii), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Godbee contends Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (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.