United States v. Alexander Fetters , 691 F. App'x 875 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 31 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-35165
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 2:14-cv-00038-DWM
2:10-cr-00001-DWM
v.
ALEXANDER WILLIAM FETTERS, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
Alexander William Fetters appeals from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a section 2255 motion,
see United States v. Manzo, 675 F.3d 1204, 1209 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Fetters contends that his sentence as a career offender under U.S.S.G.
§ 4B1.1 is unconstitutional because Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551
(2015), invalidated U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2)’s residual clause, and therefore his prior
criminal endangerment convictions no longer qualify as predicate crimes of
violence. Fetters’s argument is foreclosed. See Beckles v. United States, 137 S.
Ct. 886, 895 (2017) (holding that “the advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not
subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause and that
§ 4B1.2(a)’s residual clause is not void for vagueness”).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-35165