Daniels v. United States

699 F. App'x 915
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided October 27, 2017·No. No. 16-16338 Non-Argument Calendar·Published

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Daniels v. United States, 699 F. App'x 915 (11th Cir. 2017).

699 F. App'x 915 (Daniels v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Johnson v. United States
576 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court, 2015)
Irma Ovalles v. United States
861 F.3d 1257 (Eleventh Circuit, 2017)