MEMORANDUM OPINION

SARA LIOI, District Judge.

On December 5, 2016, defendant Anthony Cunningham ("defendant" or "Cunningham") filed a motion styled "Motion to Correct Error Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 52(b) `Combined' Rule 60(b)(1)." (Doc. No. 66 ["Mot."].)1 In his motion, defendant maintained that the Court committed "plain error" when it enhanced his sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines because "his prior felonious assault conviction, under Ohio Code Ann. 2903.11(A) is no longer a crime of violence post Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L. Ed. 2d 569 (2015)." ("Mot. at 458-59) (underlining omitted). In Johnson, the Supreme Court held that the "residual clause" of the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"), which provided, in relevant part, for a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years imprisonment for felony offenders with three or more prior convictions for "violent felonies" was unconstitutionally vague under due process principles. Id. at 2556-57. In his motion, defendant argued that the ruling in Johnson should apply with equal force to a similar provision in the Sentencing Guidelines that served as the basis for his base offense level.

The government argues that, by characterizing his motion as arising under Rule 52 and 60, defendant is attempting to circumvent the screening requirements of a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court agrees that defendant's motion should be construed as arising under § 2255 inasmuch as it attacks his sentence on the merits and requests resentencing on the grounds that the Court improperly enhanced his sentence in violation of his constitutional rights. See United States v. Carter, 500 F.3d 486, 490 (6th Cir. 2007) (motion, brought under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, challenging the underlying conviction and sentence on the merits was properly construed as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255); see, e.g., Waspun v. United States, No. 1:01-CV-638, 2005 WL 2001875, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 17, 2005) (Rule 60(b) motion properly characterized as successive § 2255 motion where motion "requests resentencing on the grounds that the Court's factual determinations increased his sentence in violation of the Sixth Amendment").

However, the Court need not reach the question of whether the present filing represents a successive § 2255 petition because, even if properly filed, the motion must be denied. On March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Beckles v. United States, distinguishing the ACCA's unconstitutionally vague residual clause from the residual clause in the Sentencing Guidelines. Beckles v. United States, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2007 WL 855781 (Mar. 6, 2017). Given the discretionary nature of the Sentencing Guidelines, the Court held that the ruling in Johnson could not be extended to invalidate sentences under the guidelines and that, therefore, the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) was not void for vagueness. Id. at *11. This ruling forecloses defendant's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and the motion is, therefore, denied.2

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant's § 2255 motion (Doc. No. 66) is denied. Furthermore, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.