MEMORANDUM OPINION

SARA LIOI, District Judge.

On February 23, 2016, defendant Jason Morgan ("defendant" or "Morgan") moved to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. No. 803 ["Mot."].)1 On March 4, 2016, the Court granted defendant's motion for the appointment of counsel, and, with the assistance of counsel, Morgan filed an amended motion. (Doc. No. 807 ["Am. Mot."].) In his amended motion, Morgan argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L. Ed. 2d 569 (2015), should be applied to invalidate his sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. 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. According to Morgan, 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.

On August 29, 2016, after the matter was fully briefed, the Court stayed the case pending a ruling from the United States Supreme Court in Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544. On March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Beckles, 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 amended motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and the amended motion is, therefore, denied.2

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant's § 2255 amended motion (Doc. No. 807) is denied and his original motion (Doc. No. 803) is denied as moot. Also, the government's alternative motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 819) is denied as moot. 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.