ORDER

LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence, made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, as corrected and amended (DE 26, 28), which challenges petitioner's sentence in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). Also before the court is the government's motion to dismiss, made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (DE 33). The issues raised are ripe for ruling.1 For the reasons that follow, the court denies petitioner's motion to vacate and grants the government's motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

On July 15, 2013, petitioner pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a). On November 6, 2013, petitioner was sentenced to 96 months' imprisonment. Petitioner did not appeal his judgment.

Petitioner filed the instant motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on February 29, 2016, arguing that the crimes used to calculate his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 were invalidated by Johnson. On June 29, 2016, this case was stayed pending the Supreme Court's final decision in Beckles v. United States, 15-8544. Then, on April 7, 2017, the stay was lifted. Petitioner was given thirty days to show cause why his § 2255 motion should not be dismissed in light of Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017). Petitioner failed to respond, and the time for doing so has passed.

COURT'S DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A petitioner seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must show that "the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). "Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall . . . grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto." Id. § 2255(b).

B. Analysis

Prior to Johnson, an offense was deemed a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act's ("ACCA") so-called "residual clause" if it was punishable by greater than one year's imprisonment and "involve[d] conduct that present[ed] a serious potential risk of physical injury to another." 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). In Johnson, the Supreme Court struck down the residual clause of the ACCA as unconstitutionally vague. 135 S. Ct. at 2563.

In this case, petitioner relies on Johnson's reasoning to challenge the application of a similar clause found in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) at the time of his sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, cmt. n.1 (stating § 4B1.2(a) provides the definition for "crime of violence" in § 2K2.1). The Supreme Court recently held, however, that "the Guidelines are not amenable to a vagueness challenge." Beckles, 137 S. Ct. at 894. Thus, petitioner may not rely on Johnson's reasoning to attack the calculation of his base offense level.

C. Certificate of Appealability

A certificate of appealability may issue only upon a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists could debate whether the issues presented should have been decided differently or that they are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). After reviewing the claim presented on collateral review in light of the applicable standard, the court finds that a certificate of appealability is not warranted.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES petitioner's motion to vacate (DE 26, 28) and GRANTS the government's motion to dismiss (DE 33). The court also DENIES a certificate of appealability. The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.

SO ORDERED.