REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

G.R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.

Movant Rico Edwards, proceeding pro se, moves under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his 2013 conviction for armed bank robbery and interference with commerce by robbery. Doc. 58;1 see docs. 1 (indictment), 36 (change of plea), 39 (guilty-plea agreement), 40 (judgment), 56 (order reducing sentence to 102 months' imprisonment). He seeks to exploit the new rule announced in Johnson, 576 U.S. ___ 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), and made retroactive by Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1257 (2016), to neutralize his sentence. Doc. 58.

Edwards pled guilty to one count of armed bank robbery and one count of Hobbs Act robbery. See docs. 36, 39, 40 (judgment entered September 24, 2013 for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 & 2113(a) and (d)). Because his sentence was not enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA),2 Johnson does not apply to his case.3 However, Edwards argues that the Supreme Court's ruling in Johnson implicates his sentence because he was charged with brandishing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and sentenced for "armed bank robbery" (which he contends is not a crime of violence under Johnson). See doc. 58 at 4-5. This argument is without merit.

While the Eleventh Circuit has not yet "decided if Johnson applies to § 924(c)(3)(B)," see In re Pindei; 824 F.3d 977, 978-79 (11th Cir. 2016) (noting "the law is unsettled" as to whether Johnson invalidates sentences that relied on the § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause4), movant was not convicted of any offense under § 924(c)'s residual clause — he was charged with offenses under § 924(c)(1)(A).5 Compare doc. 40, with doc. 1 and CR413-069, doc. 1.

And, to the extent Edwards' sentence was adjusted for brandishing, using, or possessing a firearm during a robbery, see doc. 58 at 4; PSR §§ 31 & 38, based on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, see U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)6, Johnson does not apply. United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185, 1194 (11th Cir. 2015) (explaining that the Johnson holding was "limited to criminal statutes that define elements of a crime or fix punishments," like the ACCA, and that the advisory Sentencing Guidelines "do neither"). See also Beckles v. United States of America, 616 F. App'x 415 (11th Cir. 2015) ("Johnson says nothing about career-offender enhancements under the Sentencing Guidelines or about the Guidelines commentary underlying Beckles's status as a career-offender."), cert. granted, 135 S.Ct. 2510 (June 27, 2016).

None of the provisions that drove Edwards' conviction or sentence rested on any language resembling the sort of residual clause found problematic in Johnson. There is also no precedent to suggest that it is improper to apply a five-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) under the Robbery Guideline7 to movant's convictions. Nor did defense counsel object at sentencing to the Court's application of the enhancement. See doc. 38. The purported defect that Edwards identifies simply does not raise any constitutional, statutory, or other concerns that could support a § 2255 motion.

Edward's last argument is that his criminal history was miscalculated. That is not a Johnson-based claim, so he cannot take advantage of the one-year § 2255(f)(3) limitations period exception from Johnson. See doc. 58 at 5. Since it was not filed within a year of "the date on which the judgment of conviction became final," 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1), his miscalculation claim is untimely, Zack v. Tucker, 704 F.3d 917, 922-26 (11th Cir. 2013) (habeas limitations periods apply on a claim-by-claim basis). See docs. 48 (March 20, 2014 order of the Court of Appeals granting his voluntary motion to dismiss with prejudice), 58 (signature-filed June 23, 2016, more than two years later). The Court further notes that any challenge to the miscalculation of his criminal history also has been procedurally defaulted because Edwards did not raise them on direct appeal. United States v. Montano, 398 F.3d 1276, 1279-80 (11th Cir. 2005). See United States v. Edwards, No. 13-14549 (11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2014).

In sum, Edwards' conviction and sentence were proper and his § 2255 motion should be DENIED.

Finally, Edwards asks that the Court appoint counsel to help him in his Johnson claims. Docs. 57 & 59. The Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings provide that appointment of counsel is proper if an evidentiary hearing is needed or if certain discovery is required, provided that the movant qualifies under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g). Rules 6(a), 8(c). As reflected in his moving papers, defendant has demonstrated his ability to file appropriate pleadings seeking § 2255 relief, and neither an evidentiary hearing nor discovery are necessary to resolve his case on the merits. Jones v. United States, 2016 WL 3476429, at *4 n. 5 (S.D. Ga. June 21, 2016), adopted, 2016 WL 4472973 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 24, 2016); Bing v. United States, 2015 WL 4092699 at * 3 (S.D. Ga. July 6, 2015), adopted, 2015 WL 675168 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 4, 2015). Movant's application for appointment of counsel, docs. 57 & 59, is therefore DENIED.

This Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service, any party may file written objections to this R&R with the court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations." Any request for additional time to file objections should be filed with the Clerk for consideration by the assigned district judge.

After the objections period has ended, the clerk shall submit this R&R together with any objections to the assigned district judge. The district judge will review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). The parties are advised that failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v. V.A. Leasing Carp., 648 F. App'x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Mitchell v. U.S., 612 F. App'x 542, 545 (11th Cir. 2015).

SO ORDERED.