ORDER

LAURIE SMITH CAMP, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Warren Dwayne Vasser's Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 108, construed as a Request for Certificate of Appealability, and Clerk's Memorandum regarding Defendant's in forma pauperis status, ECF No. 110.

"An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). Defendant seeks to appeal the Court's denial of his § 2255 petition, arguing that the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019), applies to his conviction and sentencing. Davis found the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) to be unconstitutionally vague. However, Defendant's crime of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), even if committed through intimidation, was a qualifying predicate offense as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). Estell v. United States, 924 F.3d 1291, 1293 (8th Cir. 2019). The Eighth Circuit has already addressed the application of Davis to convictions under § 924(c)(3)(A). Kidd v. United States, 929 F.3d 578, 581 (8th Cir. 2019) ("Because § 924(c)(3)(A) applies in this case, the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Davis does not afford [petitioner] the relief he seeks.") (citing Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319). Therefore, this Court certifies that this appeal is not taken in good faith, and Defendant is not permitted to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.

This Court declined to issue a certificate of appealability when it denied Defendant's petition. Defendant's Notice of Appeal is construed as a request for a certificate of appealability addressed to the judges of the Court of Appeals. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(2).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED: