ORDER

SUSAN O. HICKEY, District Judge.

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation entered by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas concerning Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 57. Petitioner has filed objections. ECF No. 58. The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration.

In his Report and Recommendation, Judge Bryant recommends that Petitioner's motion be denied and dismissed with prejudice and that the Court find that an appeal from dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Specifically, Judge Bryant found that Petitioner's arguments were foreclosed by the Eighth Circuit's decision in United States v. Prickett, 839 F.3d. 697 (8th Cir. 2016), which found that the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), did not render 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally vague. In his objections, Petitioner objects to Judge Bryant's findings and recommendations, but concedes that the Court is bound by Pickett. Petitioner, however, argues that the Court should issue a Certificate of Appealability as to the issue of whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague.

The issuance of a Certificate of Appealability is only appropriate in a section 2255 proceeding when a petitioner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Supreme Court has stated that "[w]here a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

The Court has recently noted, in light of recent precedent, that reasonable jurists would find that the question of whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague is debatable. See United States of America v. Johnson, 1:12-CR-10010-2, ECF No. 187, p. 3 (W.D. Ark. April 30, 2018). At the time of issuing the instant Report and Recommendation, Judge Bryant did not have the benefit of the precedent cited in this Court's recent ruling. Accordingly, the Court finds that a Certificate of Appealability shall issue.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ADOPTS IN PART Judge Bryant's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 57) insofar as it recommends a finding that Petitioner's motion should be denied on the merits. Therefore, Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 52) is hereby DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. However, the Court finds that a Certificate of Appealability should be and hereby is GRANTED on the issue of whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague.

IT IS SO ORDERED.