SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

MICHAEL R. MERZ, Magistrate Judge.

This criminal case is before the Court on the Government's Objections (ECF No. 82) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (ECF No. 81) recommending that the Defendant's Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 should be granted. Judge Rice has recommitted the case for reconsideration in light of the Objections (ECF No. 83). The Objections were filed June 30, 2017, so that Defendant's time to respond expired July 14, 2017. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Since no response has been filed, the Objections are ripe for reconsideration.

Mr. Tunstall was sentenced as a career offender before United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L. Ed. 2d 621 (2005), rendered the Sentencing Guidelines advisory. The Report reasoned that the mandatory Guidelines were sufficiently like a statute that the vagueness doctrine could apply to the residual clause of the mandatory Guidelines despite the decision in Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L. Ed. 2d 145 (2017). Beckles expressly speaks only to the post-Booker advisory guidelines.

Applying Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), and United States v. Pawlak, 822 F.3d 902 (6th Cir. 2016), the Magistrate Judge concluded Tunstall had only one qualifying predicate conviction. Because two are required, his § 2255 Motion should be granted and his sentence vacated; he should then be re-sentenced without the Career Offender enhancement previously applied to him (Report, ECF No. 81, PageID 484.)

The Government's lengthy Objections evince disagreement with the Magistrate Judge's reading of the cases involved with applying Johnson, supra. The Magistrate Judge agrees there is substantial room for disagreement about how those cases should be read. Suffice it to say that the Objections cite no controlling Sixth Circuit decision or decision from any other judge of this Court since Johnson which rejects the Magistrate Judge's reading. Rather than congest the record with thirty more pages of writing, the Magistrate Judge will stand on the initial Report and allow the District Judge to decide if it is contrary to law as written.