OPINION & ORDER
JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.
Defendant Mtu Akili
Defendant Akili's argument centers on the relationship between the Guidelines and the Armed Career Criminals Act.
On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court gave an opinion in Johnson v. United States, holding that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminals Act was unconstitutionally vague.
A criminal defendant sentenced under the ACCA residual clause can collaterally challenge his ACCA affected sentence in a § 2255 habeas proceeding.
The Guidelines' career offender provision defines "crime of violence" using the same language ruled unconstitutional in Johnson.
In Beckles, the Supreme Court rejected this argument. In Beckles, the Petitioner argued that because the Court's Johnson opinion held "that the identically worded residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act . . . was unconstitutionally vague . . . the Guidelines' residual clause is also void for vagueness."
In answering this argument, the Beckles Court held that because of the Guidelines' advisory nature, they "are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause."
The Supreme Court's decision dictates the outcome of Beckles-dependant cases pending across the federal courts. Accordingly, this Court
IT IS SO ORDERED.