Order

TERRY L. WOOTEN, Chief District Judge.

Petitioner Timothy Maurice Blanton pled guilty to a drug conspiracy charge and was sentenced as a career offender and pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement to 240 months imprisonment.1 ECF No. 712. In his § 2255 petition, he asserts that he should be resentenced without the application of the career offender enhancement. He argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), which invalidated the Armed Career Criminal Act's residual clause as unconstitutionally vague, also applies to invalidate the residual clause in the career offender sentencing guideline, formerly found at § 4B1.2(a)(2).2

The Supreme Court has now foreclosed Petitioner's argument, 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." Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886, 895 (2017); see also United States v. Foote, 784 F.3d 931, 936 (4th Cir. 2015) (concluding that an erroneous application of the sentencing guidelines, including a career offender designation, is not cognizable on collateral review pursuant to § 2255). The Court also notes that he would not be entitled to relief even absent Beckles for two reasons. First, he was sentenced pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement that was not based on the guidelines. See Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 537-39, 539 n.2 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring). Second, his predicate convictions were (1) common law robbery; (2) strong armed robbery; and (3) possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, PSR ¶¶ 36, 38, 39, and there is no question that the drug conviction and robbery convictions still count as career offender predicates even absent the residual clause, see United States v. Doctor, 842 F.3d 306, 312 (4th Cir. 2016) (concluding that South Carolina robbery is a crime of violence under the ACCA's force clause). Accordingly, Petitioner's petition for relief pursuant to § 2255, ECF No. 997, is DENIED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.3

The Court has reviewed this petition in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. In order for the Court to issue a certificate of appealability, Rule 11 requires that Petitioner satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), which in turn requires that he "has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." The Court concludes that he has not made such a showing in light of Beckles, and it is therefore not appropriate to issue a certificate of appealability as to the issues raised in this petition. Petitioner is advised that he may seek a certificate from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.